Guest Writer Dog Lover asks, "Why aren't dangerous dog owners charged with animal cruelty?" This editorial is part of our ongoing series: Perspectives of Advocates.
Every day I see news articles about pets and farm animals being mauled or killed by pit bulls or other dangerous dog breeds. Touching pictures of other people's pets or farm animals mauled or killed are often featured in the articles and never fail to bring tears to my eyes. When you read the details of the article, the attacking dog owners are seldom ticketed and rarely face criminal charges. Each time I read one of these articles detailing the suffering of the pet and the anguish of the victim's owner, I ask myself why the attacking dog owner was not charged with animal cruelty.
Two of my small dogs have been attacked by loose pit bulls. One of my small dogs was injured enough to necessitate $2,000 in vet bills, but fortunately survived and fully recovered. My other dog was so severely mauled that the emergency vet said that he had never seen a dog suffer such grievous injuries and still be alive. After reviewing the X-rays showing the extent of my beloved dog's internal injuries, I regretfully decided to have him euthanized. My dog was so weak from the injuries he had sustained from that brutal pit bull attack, the vet said he was already very near death when he was administering the drugs. I was heartbroken when my beloved companion took his last breath.
Both of my dogs suffered physically and emotionally from being attacked by someone else's pet. The dire consequence of one of those attacks was that my dog's life was stolen from him. How is that not considered animal cruelty? The attacking dog owners were not charged after either attack. They were not even ticketed for allowing their dogs to roam. I was told by the authorities that dog-on-dog attacks are considered civil and not criminal issues. That leaves the onus on the victim to hold the attacking dog owner accountable for vet and medical bills. The fact that a companion animal you loved and cherished was injured or killed as the result of a dangerous dog owner's negligence appeared to be irrelevant.
Many states and municipalities have included animal cruelty in their animal ordinances. But the animal cruelty statutes only seem to address neglect or cruelty toward an animal by its owner. The animal cruelty statutes don't address or are seldom applied to the cruelty suffered by pets or farm animals that are attacked by dogs owned by someone else. It is inconceivable to me that the suffering an animal experiences during a mauling by someone else's dog(s) is not just as cruel as neglect or mistreatment to an animal by its owner. When I asked the police officer why the dog owner wasn't charged with animal cruelty after my dog was fatally mauled, he shrugged and said that's not what they consider animal cruelty. I asked him why not and he said that it would be a matter of proving intent. It makes no sense to me why not controlling and containing one's dog and allowing it to roam and injure another animal wouldn't show intent.
The reason given by the authorities for why dog attacks on animals are considered civil matters instead of criminal is that dogs are considered property. That doesn’t make sense either considering that theft or vandalism of one’s property would result in the arrest of the perpetrator while an attack on one’s pet by someone’s dog is not. It is outrageous that the mauling or death of someone’s pet is considered less important in the view of the law than broken windows or a stolen TV set.
It also makes no sense that a dangerous dog owner is not charged with criminal trespass when their dog enters another person’s property and causes harm. Too often roaming dangerous dogs maul or kill pets in their own yards. Even worse, dangerous dogs too often enter other people’s homes by screen doors, windows or pet doors to harm or kill resident pets. If these types of home invasion attacks were taken seriously by the authorities, it would make sense to charge the dangerous dog owner with criminal trespass.
A commonality stated in news articles when loose dog(s) attack is that the attacking dog was loose because it "somehow" escaped. I'm always baffled by the use of the word "somehow" because it implies that dogs become loose for some unexplained or mystical reason instead of the failure of a dog owner to control and contain their pet(s). The fact that the dog is loose is considered an accident regardless of an attack on someone else's animal. The word "somehow" is even used when a dog has a history of being loose. Why are dangerous dog owners given a pass when the consequence of their failure to control and contain their dog results in the injury or death of someone's else’s animal?
I am also outraged when someone is charged with animal cruelty after defending themselves or their animals against someone else's dog that is attacking or menacing. It makes no sense that the fault is solely levied against the victim instead of the owner of the dog that was doing the attacking or menacing.
There were at least 46 reported dog attacks in the US in 2020 that resulted in a human fatality. There are numerous maulings every year from dog attacks where humans suffer a range of injuries from relatively minor to life-altering debilitation. I have been waiting since 2013 for these maulings and deaths of humans to cause widespread public outrage, but it never seems to happen. Since the death and injury to humans attacked by dogs is tolerated and mostly ignored by the authorities and the public, I guess I shouldn't be surprised when the injury or death of someone's pet is tolerated and ignored.
Dog attacks will continue to happen with increased frequency and severity if dangerous dog owners are not held criminally accountable. Holding a dangerous dog owner accountable and charging that person with animal cruelty and/or other criminal charges when their dog attacks another person's animal would be an important way to deter future attacks and increase public safety.
Note from DogsBite.org
As painful as Dog Lover's editorial is, it is important to state that animal cruelty laws are to punish people for their own actions, not the actions of their pets. Instead of stretching animal cruelty laws for this purpose, which comes with the onus of having to prove intent "beyond a reasonable doubt," there are laws, when enforced, that do address these issues.1 For example, the model Dangerous Dog Law and Irresponsible Dog Owner Law created by attorney Kenneth Phillips.
Related articles:
12/16/20: Perspectives of Advocates: Ann Marie Rogers, Animal Welfare Advocate
12/04/20: Perspectives of Advocates: We've Heard It All Before! by The Old Timer
11/27/20: Perspectives of Advocates: Pit Bull Lobby and Tobacco Institute by Lucy Muir
11/17/20: Perspectives of Advocates: My Take on Pit Bulls by Carol Miller
Why? Because some local and state laws and statutes are based on the status quo. That is, dangerous canines that maul and kill are the norm. Some local jurisdictions simply accept that dangerous canines will kill and maul other animals and people. The needle pointing at this point on the gauge is what some local jurisdictions accept. Any attempt to move the needle toward less maulings and killings of people and animals is met with fierce official forcible opposition, in some local jurisdictions. In Prescott, Az, dog at large is a criminal offense, but this is close to zero enforced. Basically zero enforcement. The rare exception is when the animal control officer feels threatened by the loose dog, or when the good civilian captures the crime on video. There may be some local jurisdictions where the correct laws exist, and the correct laws are enforced correctly. Tragically, it appears that such almost completely does not exist anywhere.
Enforcement is the key here, Richard. Because even the simplest dog laws don’t get enforced. The green strip near my place is ankle-deep in dog sh*t due to lack of enforcement.
At this point there shouldn’t be a single pitbull that isn’t so old all it’s teeth fell out already, left in Ontario due to BSL.
Yet here we are.
It is really is ridiculous how dangerous dogs are treated. The one that attacked my dog twice still runs loose. Animal Control lady thinks that pit bulls are wonderful and when called does nothing more than show up and talk to them. We had a vet bill that of course they couldn’t pay, said OH dog was visiting. Civil Court would of been an option but sure after all the hassle, they still wouldn’t of had any money and since live on our street and so many of the family is in jail on a regular basis they would retaliate. Even when my daughter was attacked by a pit bull, they did nothing and a week later the owners moved out in the middle of the night, he left his job and most likely went out of state. That was after his pit bull that was supposed to be quarantined killed a cat in another neighbor’s yard.
Did I miss something in the DangerousDog Law. The problem is that it is known that pit bulls are bred to be dangerous. A dog law like the one I read does not prevent the pit bull from killing or maiming a person. Only after the death or maiming is the dog possibly considered to be dangerous. Therefore dozens of people will continue to be mauled to death each year by pit bulls which only after a horror show played out on the body of a human being do they get the designation-dangerous. I’m sure jurisdictions would fight legislation that placed the damage done by a dangerous dogs square on the shoulders of the owners. I believe any owner of a breed like a pit bull, press canaria , cane corso or such that engages in a sustained attack on human being should bear the full criminal charge of malicious wounding or murder or manslaughter. More and more ignorant dog owners are acquiring large dangerous dogs and they don’t have a clue. Others do have a clue but all should be accountable in criminal court not with some silly Animal Control $50. fine. All should be fully liable for all medical expenses and damages as well and incarceration. This wholesale slaughter on human beings by dogs, especially and predictably pit bulls should move to the criminal courts since the states are preempting breed specific legislation. It is an injustice to Victims that is depraved.
Why indeed, DogLover?
If I pull out a bat and beat your dog to death I will be charged. While the bat is not to blame, the fact that I was carrying the bat around for no sensible reason means I had every intention of harming something.
Yet, pitbull owners, some with dogs they *know* to be aggressive, are not charged with animal cruelty? Do they ever get charged when the sic their dog on their own cat, or other dogs? How far down the rabbit hole do we need to go?
Simplest solution is BSL. The usual laws? The pitbull *must* be suitably muzzled in public in which case, your dogs would still be fine.
At more severe levels or over time if it is strictly enforced, no pitbulls at all which would mean no access to accidentally, or purposefully, having them as weapons against other animals or people.
Here’s the question though, not trying to be difficult…
At what point does it qualify as an “attack”? Or “deliberate”?
That’s the determination that’s required. If we are back to the “one bite law” (against other animals this time) then an awful lot of dogs that are defending themselves might be caught in that legal web. Stitch count? What is mauling vs. fighting/defending?
Not trying to be difficult here but I once had a working Bouvier *defend* himself from a loose, attacking pitbull who was either crippled or later dead from the attack after it tried to go for the throat. Yet he wasn’t hostile to other dogs.
Do I think some sort of law is necessary to protect animals from stupid owners who won’t take responsibility? Absolutely.
Just how to put that together would take a team of lawyers and vets that understand how legislation, works. That petition is far too open to interpretation.
If a dog *murders* another dog unprovoked or after it attempts to flee, or a cat, or other animal that certainly should be legislatable–especially if the animal victim is on its own property. Then of course, there’s the problem of an owner, whose dog murders their own cat/dog/horse the follows up by killing something in the neighbourhood or a second animal owned by the same person.
It’s complex. Not sure I have the answers for all those questions but it’s worth discussing…
There seems to be minimal culpability extended to pibble people when their land sharks cause death and destruction. The dogs are rarely considered dangerous dogs or deadly weapons. They are also rarely considered property resulting in injury due to owner/operator negligence. Tell me how a pit bull off a leash, without a muzzle, somehow magically loose resulting in a mauling is not considered negligent in the way that the driver of a vehicle resulting in an MVA from an inattentive driver is not?
I am so sorry this happened to you and your dogs.
Why? Our society worships dogs. Dog is our copilot. Our society is dog-sick, misinformed on the nature of dogs, and pit bulls particularly. People’s ego’s are pathologically tied to their pet, moreso the vicious dog crowd.
Exactly.
And, if I’m correctly interpreting this post, the issue is bringing criminal charges of animal cruelty.
However, there is nothing stopping victims from filing civil lawsuits. Or settling things informally, which happened in my neighborhood last year.
A young man was minding his own business while walking near my house. Then came the two pit bulls owned by the people across the street. I suspect that they’re running a breeding operation, but I can’t prove it.
Well, the police, fire department, and animal control came. Animal control confiscated the dogs and, ahhhh. We had peace and quiet in the neighborhood — until the owners got those dogs back. The hellhounds returned to the neighborhood three weeks after the attac,
But I’m getting ahead of myself. A week after the attack, the young man drove up to the pibble owners’ house, got out of the car, and started having a discussion with one of the two chronological adults.
Even from my safe inside my house vantage point, I could tell that the young pit bull attack victim wasn’t going to leave until he got some compensation of the green sort.
Mr. Chrono Adult gave the young man a handful of bills, but nope. It wasn’t enough. He had to run into the house and get more from Ms. Chrono Adult.
Finally, the young man was satisfied with the compensation he received. He got in his car and drove off.
Me again. Looks like Mr. and Ms. Chrono Adult are in hot water.
Reason: Animal cruelty.
Seems that they left their pit bulls outside while they went away on a trip to who-knows-where.
According to the animal control officer who came to investigate, one of the pits was tied up without access to water or shelter. That’s illegal in this county, and the fines start at $150.
They came home this morning, and they don’t look to be the least bit happy. I’m guessing their unhappiness is due to the fact that those dogs cost them money again.
Which is weird because $150 would barely buy a month’s worth of decent quality dog food for dogs that size.
In order for a crime to have been committed, a PERSON has to commit it. So here we have a dog committing a crime (except that dogs can’t commit crimes since they’re not human). What if the perpetrator was a child? When does the parent become criminally liable for a crime committed by their child? This scenario is a little closer to the dog attacking another animal. When is a dog owner criminally liable for the acts committed by their dog?
In some jurisdictions, a dog’s owner is “strictly liable” for any damage caused by their dog. This means at least you don’t have to prove “intent” of the dog’s owner, but neither does this indicate a crime. It’s considered a tort, a civil wrong that causes someone to suffer loss or harm. So you sue for the damages the dog’s owner caused you, but no one goes to jail.
What sorts of “acts” can a dog’s owner commit that are crimes?
In some jurisdictions, they have written statutes or ordinances declaring as a crime certain acts. Perhaps “allowing your dog to roam loose” might be a misdemeanor. But they would have to have written a law/statute/ordinance declaring it so. And they don’t go around arresting people who let their dogs run loose, because charging someone with a crime is a serious matter. But if someone’s loose dog bit someone, they might charge them with “allowing their dog to roam loose”.
Perhaps your dog has been declared a “vicious dog” or a “dangerous dog” by a local jurisdiction for having bitten some citizen. And THEN you let your dog roam loose. If that “already declared dangerous dog” bites someone, you likely would be guilty of some sort of criminal negligence because it bit a human (but unlikely to be criminal-level negligence if it bit another dog, which is property, so then you’re back to torts again).
And then in some jurisdictions where “breed specific laws” are in place, the law might state that “pit bulls are PRESUMED to be dangerous dogs”, which means that allowing one to roam lose and bite someone would be a criminal act of negligence by the owner. (Still probably not a crime if the presumed-dangerous pit bull killed another local animal.)
And now you know why the pit bull lobby MUST get removed all BSL (breed specific laws). It is that presumption of dangerousness that puts the pit bull owner ON NOTICE that they need to control and confine their dog to a higher standard than otherwise… else they risk committing a crime. And the pit bull lobby can’t be having their favorite dog owners being convicted of crimes for acts their dogs do naturally, now can they.
And you thought the lobby was doing it so pit bull lovers can have “the right” to own whichever dog breed they want. Oh no. They do it to reduce the criminality they inherently face by owning such dogs.
In England and Wales UK, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 4 would cover most attacks on a dog or other protected animal.
There are points to prove but most cases there is history behind the dog attacking.
“Failing to control your dog caused unnecessary suffering to a (what ever type of dog it attached).
Veterinary forensic evidence would be required.
What amazes me is that dogs are a cash cow waiting to be cashed in. Real fines like $500 for dog running loose, $200 for dog off leash, $200 for disturbing the peace, with increases for repeat offenders, would put a real dent in the doggie bad behavior and put some real cash into municipalities. But they’d rather out neighborhoods be like the Serengeti than deal with belligerent, Ahole dog owners.
We’re currently living in a strange situation in which dogs are simultaneously humans (dogs should be allowed everywhere; dogs’ feelings can be hurt by “breed discrimination”) and objects of property (every person has the right to own and breed pit bulls, even to the detriment of the dogs themselves; Pit bull killed your dog? Oh well, it’s just a piece of property. Go get a new one.)
Pit bull advocates often use these seemingly polar opposite views of canines at the exact same time.
It gets even worse. Only 1 out of every 5 owners of dogs that cause a HUMAN fatality are even CHARGED, let alone convicted. Society has fallen victim to the sociopath, dog worshipping, anthropomorphizing, cultists that see dogs as human.
The slaughter of HUMANS as well as pets and livestock, won’t stop until society decides to put the irrational silliness of the cultists behind and start prosecuting the OWNERS, enforcing REAL CONSEQUENCES ( ie. Forfeiture of the animal, putting the animal down, enacting realistic monetary damages ** According to ABA average Dog bite victim receives $27,000 while average medical bill is $36,000, so even the select few that sue and receive compensation (roughly 2%) don’t even receive enough compensation to cover their medical bills!!!!!
concealed carry is a thing. arm yourself.
my neighbor’s snapping snarling barking pitbull threatening me from the other side of the fence every time I walked to pick up the mail from the box was the incentive to become a firearms owner.
I hope never to use weapons against an animal or person, but I am not going to let me or my pets be victimized by ignorant pitbull owners.