To amend sections 955.11, 955.22, 955.222, 955.54, 955.99, and 956.99 and to enact sections 955.13, 955.60, and 956.25 of the Revised Code to make changes to the laws governing dogs and other companion animals and to name this act Avery's Law.
HB240, named Avery’s Law, revises Ohio’s laws governing dogs and other companion animals. The bill expands and refines the definitions of nuisance, dangerous, and vicious dogs, including adding injuries to companion animals to the dangerous-dog definition and clarifying when a dog is considered vicious. It also creates new reporting requirements for dog bites and injuries, requiring health care providers, veterinarians, dog owners, and injured persons to report incidents to local health officials, and requiring local health districts to submit annual bite-and-injury reports to the Ohio Department of Health.
The bill also strengthens transfer-of-ownership disclosures for dogs, requiring sellers to provide transfer certificates and, when they know a dog is dangerous, to disclose prior aggressive behavior to the buyer, local health officials, and the county dog warden. It adds a new enforcement section directing authorized officials to investigate complaints and notify owners when a complaint is investigated but no citation is issued. In addition, it creates a new offense barring the commercial breeding of companion animals in residentially zoned areas, with exceptions for noncommercial recreational breeding and accidental breeding.
HB240 increases and restructures restrictions on owners of dangerous and vicious dogs. It requires confinement, leashing, muzzling, registration, microchipping, warning signs, and in some cases liability insurance, and it expands court authority to order obedience training, supervision, confinement at a pound, or humane destruction of the dog in serious cases. The bill also changes the collateral consequences for certain felony offenders by extending from three to five years the period during which they may not own or reside with an unspayed or unneutered dog older than twelve weeks or a dangerous dog, and it requires microchipping of dogs owned or possessed by those offenders.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded committee testimony or votes. Based on the text, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and animal-protection bill, with a strong emphasis on preventing attacks, improving reporting, and increasing accountability for owners and sellers of high-risk dogs. Because there is no recorded debate, there is no documented support or opposition in the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the expanded regulatory burden on dog owners, breeders, veterinarians, and local officials, as well as the tougher penalties and destruction provisions for dangerous and vicious dogs. The new residential breeding ban may also draw attention from hobby breeders and animal owners, while the broadened definitions and reporting requirements could raise concerns about enforcement, due process, and the scope of local discretion. Police dogs are expressly exempted from several dangerous-dog and vicious-dog provisions when acting in official duties.
HB240 would amend multiple sections of the Revised Code governing dog classification, confinement, transfer, reporting, penalties, and breeding. It would create new statutory duties for reporting bites and injuries, new disclosure obligations when dogs are transferred, a new prohibition on commercial companion-animal breeding in residential zones, and new enforcement and notice procedures for alleged violations. It also increases restrictions and penalties for owners of dangerous or vicious dogs and extends certain dog-ownership prohibitions for people convicted of specified offenses.
The available legislative record shows no committee testimony and no votes, so there is no documented public or member sentiment beyond the bill’s text. The measure is presented as a public-safety and animal-welfare proposal, suggesting a protective rationale, but the absence of recorded discussion means support and opposition cannot be measured from the provided materials.
Likely areas of contention include the expanded definition of dangerous and vicious dogs, the mandatory reporting and disclosure requirements, the new residential commercial-breeding ban, and the increased penalties and confinement/destruction options for dogs involved in attacks. Dog owners, breeders, veterinarians, and local enforcement agencies may view these provisions as burdensome or overly punitive, while supporters would likely emphasize public safety, transparency, and stronger protections for people and companion animals. Police-dog exemptions and due-process hearing procedures may also be points of focus.