West Virginia House Bill HB2069

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/25
• Refer: 2/12/25
• Refer: 2/13/25

Caption

Clarifying the penalty of a dog attacking livestock by adding a proviso to include “any other livestock.”

Summary

HB2069 amends West Virginia’s dog-and-livestock damage statute to clarify that the existing penalties for a dog that worries, wounds, chases, or kills livestock apply not only to the animals already listed in the code, but also to “any other livestock” as defined elsewhere in state law. The bill does not create a new enforcement scheme; instead, it expands the reach of the current remedy so that owners or keepers of dogs that attack unlisted livestock species are subject to the same notice, destruction, cost, and liability provisions already applied to attacks on sheep, goats, cattle, swine, rabbits, horses, colts, and poultry. Under the bill, if a dog is found to have attacked covered livestock, the owner or keeper must kill the dog within 48 hours after written notice from a reliable source under oath, or a magistrate may issue a warrant and direct the sheriff to kill or otherwise dispose of the dog. The dog owner remains responsible for the costs of the proceedings and for the value of the injured or killed animals. The practical effect is to broaden the statute’s protection for livestock owners and ensure that the penalty provisions reach livestock species not specifically named in the older text.

Impact

HB2069 would amend §19-20-18 of the West Virginia Code, which governs penalties when dogs attack livestock. The key legal change is the addition of a proviso stating that the statute’s penalties apply to all listed livestock and to any other livestock as defined in §19-18-1, even if not expressly named in the section. This would extend existing civil and enforcement consequences to additional livestock categories without changing the underlying process for notice, magistrate action, sheriff enforcement, or cost recovery.

Sentiment

The bill appears to be straightforward and protective of livestock owners, with no recorded committee debate or votes indicating opposition or support beyond the sponsor’s stated intent. The caption and bill note frame it as a clarification measure, suggesting a generally practical and noncontroversial purpose: ensuring the law covers all livestock that may be harmed by dogs. Because there are no transcripts or votes available, the public or legislative sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s narrow, clarifying nature.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the expansion of liability and enforcement to livestock not specifically listed in the current statute. Supporters would likely view this as closing a loophole and aligning the dog-attack penalty with the broader statutory definition of livestock, while any critics might question whether the existing list should be expanded by reference rather than by naming species directly. Another possible concern is the severity of the remedy—requiring the dog to be killed or otherwise disposed of—which is already in the law and becomes applicable to a wider range of livestock incidents under this bill.