An Act amending Title 51 (Military Affairs) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Educational Assistance Program, further providing for definitions, for eligibility and for recoupment of grant payments; and, in Military Family Education Program, further providing for definitions, for eligibility, for limitations and for recoupment of Military Family Education Program grant payments.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Lisa Borowski and 34 co-sponsors

Eliminates automatic dangerous dog labels for fighting-connected dogs; lets local authorities assess each case and adopt compatible local danger-control programs.

Act No. 32 of 2025

Main purpose

To change how North Carolina law treats dogs associated with dog fighting by removing an automatic/durable designation of such animals as “dangerous” and instead allowing a case‑by‑case determination by the designated local authority. The bill also clarifies that local governments may adopt dangerous‑dog control programs consistent with state law.

Key provisions

Amends G.S. 67‑4.1 (definitions and procedures):

Revises the definition of “dangerous dog.” Under current law, any dog “owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting, or any dog trained for dog fighting” is treated under the statute. The bill removes the automatic classification and permits authorities to determine on a case‑by‑case basis whether a dog trained for dog fighting qualifies as a dangerous dog based on behavior and other factors.

Amends G.S. 67‑4.5 (local ordinances):

Confirms that cities and counties may adopt or enforce their own programs for controlling dangerous dogs, so long as the local program is consistent with the state Dangerous Dog Article.

Effective date:

The act takes effect October 1, 2025.

Who is affected

Local animal control authorities and boards responsible for designating dangerous dogs: will gain discretion to evaluate dogs trained for fighting rather than apply an automatic classification.

Dog owners and custodians: owners of dogs with histories of training for fighting may avoid an automatic dangerous designation but may face individualized assessment, mitigation requirements, or enforcement actions if a dog’s behavior supports a dangerous‑dog finding.

Animal shelters and rescues: potential changes in intake, disposition, or required holding/rehoming practices for dogs associated with fighting.

Law enforcement and courts: may see more hearings, evaluations, or contested determinations concerning whether particular dogs are “dangerous.”

Public safety stakeholders: outcomes may change local responses to dogs tied to fighting; determinations will hinge on observed behavior and local findings.

Practical and policy implications

Intended benefit: allows more nuanced, evidence‑based determinations so dogs are not automatically labeled dangerous solely because of prior training or ownership context.

Implementation considerations: local authorities may need procedures, behavioral evaluation protocols, or additional resources to assess dogs individually; variation in local practices could arise.

Public safety balance: the change increases discretion and may reduce automatic euthanasia/seizure in some cases, but could raise concerns if high‑risk animals are not identified promptly.

Procedural notes

Introduced November 12, 2024; passed first reading and referred to appropriate committee(s) for further consideration. (Per the records provided, subsequent committee referrals and actions occurred; check the legislature’s official docket for current status and any amendments.)

If you want, I can:
- Pull the current text of G.S. 67‑4.1 and show side‑by‑side comparisons (before/after).
- Summarize committee testimony or stakeholder positions (law enforcement, humane groups, local governments) if available.

Bill

HB 865 — Clarify Animal Welfare Statutes (Dangerous Dog Definitions)

Main purpose

Key provisions

Who is affected

Practical and policy implications

Procedural notes

Create your proposal