Law mandates microchips for violent dogs

DENVER—Colorado law now requires owners to implant microchips in dogs deemed dangerous by a court.

Dangerous dogs are those proven to have caused injury to a person. According to the law, a licensed veterinarian or shelter must implant the microchip and report its information to the Bureau of Animal Protection in the Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Industry. Owners must pay a $50 registration fee apart from practitioner charges associated with the procedure.

Colorado Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) officials support the regulation, and so far, have heard no negative reaction, CVMA Executive Director Ralph Johnson says.

"This new law will close a loophole that has allowed dangerous dogs to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction without local law enforcement being made aware of the dog in the community," Johnson says. "Communities need to know when a dangerous dog comes into its midst."

Harder to hide

Several incidents of mauling provoked the legislation, officials say, including a case where a pack of free-roaming dogs terrorized a rural neighborhood.

Owners of dangerous dogs have been known to disguise their pets to avoid fines or prevent destroying the animal. The Colorado law allows officials to positively identify a dog in case it bites again, Johnson says.

"It's designed to keep tabs on the animal despite what owners might do to hide it from authorities," he says.

States regulate

Colorado lawmakers follow the example of Minnesota, which enacted a similar law in 2001 and an Illinois statute that grants counties the option of requiring microchips for registering dogs and cats. Dangerous dogs in Virginia must have a microchip implant or an identifying tattoo on the inner thigh.

Most recently, the New York Legislature voted to revise an existing statute to give judges the choice of ordering a microchip for a dangerous dog instead of killing or confining the animal. Gov. George Pataki must sign the act to become law.

Every dog ought to be identified, says Dr. Doug Aspros, owner of Bond Animal Hospital in White Plains, N.Y., and Westchester County Board of Health president.

"The question always is how do you identify a dangerous dog? There's really no great way to do that," he says. "From a public health perspective, there are way too many dog bites. Anything we could do to cut down on that would be a good thing. There's really nothing wrong about identifying dogs regardless of behavior."

Nixing breed-specific bans

As Colorado pet owners adapt to the microchip mandate, lawmakers are considering a measure barring cities and counties from adopting breed-specific bans.

CVMA supports the initiative.

"The message of this bill is that in Colorado, we want animals judged by their behavior, not by their looks," Johnson says. "Both of these bills kind of connect how dangerous dogs are viewed in this state."