Dogbitelaw.com - Most laws do not count multiple dog bites from different dogs in the same home as a serious problem. This creates a loophole that lets irresponsible owners keep getting new dogs after each attack. Here’s how it works:
Vicious Dog Owner Loop
- If one owner has three dogs, and each dog bites a different person, the law sees this as:
- ✅ One bite per dog (Not a repeat offense).
- ❌ Not one owner responsible for three bites.
- ❌ Not one dangerous dog with multiple attacks.
- Each dog is judged separately. Even if all three dogs are declared dangerous, the owner can:
- ✅ Put them down and get three new dogs.
- ✅ Start fresh with "clean slate" dogs.
- No serious penalties means no reason for the owner to change. The cycle repeats over and over.
This "vicious dog owner loop" allows reckless dog owners to avoid responsibility while their dogs keep biting people. This is intolerable!
How to Break the Loop
To stop this cycle, we need stronger laws:
- Create a national registry of irresponsible dog owners—people convicted of animal control violations or who have paid settlements or court judgments for dog attacks.
- Require higher liability insurance for dog owners with a history of attacks.
- Increase penalties for repeat offenders to compensate victims more fairly.
- Ban repeat offenders from owning or harboring dogs after multiple violations.
Stronger laws will hold irresponsible owners accountable and protect the public from preventable attacks.
The "Vicious Dog Owner Loop" terminology and definition was written by dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com. This longstanding loophole is part of his model Irresponsible Dog Owner law. As a wonderful courtesy, we have permission from Phillips to publish this portion on our website.
Many dog attack victims experience this loophole firsthand. Most of them are shaken by it. The definition provided by Phillips helps victims understand how the law sees one or more biting dogs in the same household. Phillips also provides legal solutions about how to break this cycle. Remember, if there are no serious penalties, there is no reason for the dog owner to change. Fines equivalent to a "parking ticket" are unacceptable. As Phillips outlines in his model law, $500 is the first tier fine.
Our first encounter with this issue was in 2008 when we read about the Cordova family in Buffalo, New York. The title of the article is: Four dogs from one family have bitten others in last three years. What the victims of the Cordova dogs experienced is a mixture of weak dangerous dog laws and this loophole. Back then, the legal officer of the city said she would like to see the existing law revised because she believes it fails to penalize dog owners for their "collective dog-biting offenses."
“The law only applies to owners and doesn’t look at it in terms of households,” said Lukasiewicz. “Under the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, a determination is made whether that particular dog involved is dangerous, and the law doesn’t look collectively at all the dogs involved. That’s how the law is written.” - City Corporation Counsel Alisa A. Lukasiewicz
But the law in Buffalo did not change, and the first tier fine for an off leash violation is still $15. In fact, the municipal code for Article IV Control of Dogs literally says, "Allegations of violation of this article shall be adjudicated in the Parking Violations Bureau of the City of Buffalo." The Cordova family had five biting incidents, one being trauma-unit severity, involving separate dogs from their home in a few year period. None of the dogs had more than one bite attributed to it when the article was published.
About 10 years ago, I was invited to participate in a study group about mandating pit bull spay/neuter in my city, and to shore up our very weak dangerous dog law. The other participants ranged from city alders to animal control officers to shelter managers and operators of low-cost spay/neuter clinics. The alder who started the group and I were the only two openly in favor of the laws, so nothing ever came of it.
They gave the following reasons for why dangerous dog laws don’t work, and even the animal control reps (which I knew were secretly anti-pit bull) agreed. I have to agree that they brought up some good points that will need to be addressed by any city that hopes to enforce dangerous dog laws.
First, they said that when a dog bites, nobody usually claims ownership. The ostensible owner will claim it belongs to their roommate, brother, grandkid, neighbor; or they’re only watching it for a friend “this week.” The dog was bought for cash, has never been licensed, never been to a vet… so there’s no way to prove who owns it. So the police simply drop the case. (IMO, if nobody claims ownership, a biting dog should be euthanized immediately. Also, police should be able to use social media posts to help establish ownership.)
Second, if the owner has multiple dogs—say a pit bull and a beagle—many will claim the beagle is the biter. The beagle gets the “dangerous dog” designation and has to be fenced, while the pit bull can resume escaping/roaming as usual.
Third, even if someone claims ownership and the dog is microchipped and declared dangerous, the owner just gives the dog away, giving it a clean record. That’s because dangerous dog declarations don’t transfer. The dog is only “dangerous” in Madison… but not half a mile away in Fitchburg… or not when it’s with a new owner. And until that microchipped dog mauls somebody again, there is no way to know where it is living. Animal control said they would essentially have to take a scanner to every house and scan every dog on a regular basis to track the movements of the dangerous dog from one city to another… and it wouldn’t matter, since the “dangerous” designation isn’t transferrable. BTW, the study group also said that microchipping could be considered “abusive” or “harmful” and many judges would not require it, even if a dog had mauled someone.
Fourth, even if the owner is identified and keeps the dog after the “dangerous dog” declaration… the police do not have time to check whether the owner is following the fence and muzzle laws. They can’t do a stakeout seeing if the dog is being leash-walked without a muzzle. And how does it help for them to verify a fence when a pit bull can scale a 6’+ fence effortlessly?
Animal control said about one dog a year is declared dangerous in my county of over half a million people. They said even these dogs are impossible to track or monitor, and said the declaration was worthless and a waste of court time.
Add in a law that says, “Anyone who knowingly sells, adopts out, fosters out or rehomes a dog they knows has bitten, is liable” and charge them with “reckless endangerment” or more.
Because some of these dogs are biting before the new owner/foster realizes there’s a problem.
This is why there’s so many attacks linked to getting a new dog.
This has to be stopped at the source.