Posted on February 13, 2021 by Colleen Lynn

2021 Dog Bite Fatality: Newborn Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog in Kearney, Nebraska

A family dog killed a newborn baby in the middle of the night in Kearney, Nebraska.

Dog Kills Newborn
Kearney, NE - On Friday afternoon, it was reported that a 1-month old baby girl died as a result of blunt force and cranial trauma inflicted by a family dog. The attack occurred about 3:00 am Wednesday, according to Kearney Police. A Good Samaritan ambulance was dispatched to a home in the 500 block of West 14th Street for an infant not breathing. KPD was first to arrive on scene and discovered the newborn dead. A family American bulldog inflicted the deadly attack.

Police did not issue a press release after the fatal dog mauling. However, Buffalo County Attorney Shawn Eatherton did issue a release Friday stating that an autopsy performed on February 11 confirmed the infant died as a result of blunt force and cranial trauma caused by an American bulldog residing in the home. An investigation into the history of the dog revealed no prior known aggression. The cause of death was ruled accidental. The dog was euthanized on February 10.

Fatal Dog Mauling Trends

This is the only recorded fatal dog mauling in Nebraska since 2005. Last year, we discussed fatal dog attacks that occur in the "middle of the night." We stated then, "We do not track the time of a fatal attack. Perhaps we should, especially for ages 0-2 years old." A 2019 Central Texas pediatric study reported that most serious dog bite injuries occurred during the evening hours, 46.8% (5:00 pm to 8:59 pm). During the night hours (9:00 pm to 4:59 am), only 13.8% of injuries occurred.

Last year, there were six John or Jane Doe fatal dog maulings, which is a high number of unnamed victims. Each person was killed by a family dog. In half of the cases, police did not issue a press release after the death. These deaths were only discovered through FOIA requests by this nonprofit, and in one case, a request sent in by a local media outlet. Of the 46 persons killed by dogs in 2020, nearly one-quarter, 22%, lacked an official news release, a disturbing trend.

Had the Buffalo County attorney, in this instance, not issued a news release, this infant's death likely would have gone undetected.

It is proper to question why this occurred. Is Covid-19 impacting normal protocols? Over 95% of information that reaches the public about fatal dog maulings does so by the media directly reporting police and coroner news releases. Without these releases, the media reports are absent. During 2020, we also saw a 45% decrease in media reports regarding fatal dog maulings. That was Covid-related, as the media industry lost over 36,000 jobs from January through June 2020.

Finally, from November 1, 2019 to February 12, 2020 (pre-pandemic), there were 16 dog bite fatalities reported. From November 1, 2020 to February 12, 2021 (amidst pandemic) there were 6 dog bite fatalities reported, an abnormal decrease of 63%. There is no precedent for this. When combining 15 years of dog bite fatalities, there are no seasonal differences in the frequency. This is unlike nonfatal dog bites, where frequency increases during the spring and summer months.

15 years of dog bite fatalities by season

15 years of U.S. dog bite-related fatalities by season (2005 to 2019) by DogsBite.org.

Posted on February 8, 2021 by Colleen Lynn

After Multiple Pit Bull Attacks in the Humboldt County, Emerald Triangle Region, Cliché Red Herring Distracts from Real Issue

Multiple violent pit bull attacks dominate Humboldt County, Emerald Triangle Region.

Fourth Serious Attack
Humboldt County, CA - On Friday, another violent dog attack was reported by the Redheaded Blackbelt, a media outlet that serves the Emerald Triangle. This is the fourth violent attack in the region since January 9. Humboldt County has a population of 135,000 and contains cities like Arcata and Eureka and Humboldt Redwoods State Park. We first interacted with the Blackbelt in 2018 after a pit bull "rampage attack" in Arcata left one man dead and another adult injured.

Given the severe decline in media reports of violent dog attacks since Covid-19 set in last year, it is surprising that low population areas in northern California are reporting so many attacks. Or perhaps not? Humboldt County is one of the most dangerous counties in California, according to Ranker.com. The county led the state in murders, car crashes and accidental deaths, and is the epicenter of the cannabis industry. The county even inspired a NetFlix series, Murder Mountain.

In 2016, a commenter on City-Data talked about revisiting Arcata and Eureka after 40 years. NoMoreSnowForMe states, "I've never seen a town with so many people walking large dogs -- mainly pit bulls." The title of the thread is, "Whoa, What's with all the pit bulls in Arcata?" The breed of dog involved in the most recent violent attack, the February 5 facial attack in Eureka, has since been identified as a pit bull.1 The other three serious attacks also involved pit bulls.

Deputies arrived on scene and located a 59-year-old female victim with serious injuries related to a dog attack. The victim was given emergency medical treatment by first responders on scene and then was transported to a local hospital in unknown condition. The dog, identified as a pit bull, had already been contained upon deputy arrival.

While conducting their investigation, deputies learned that the dog’s owner was outside with the dog when the victim reportedly walked by. For unknown reasons, the dog reportedly escaped its harness and attacked the victim. - Humboldt County Sheriff's Office, February 8, 2021

The first attack occurred on January 9, when two adults within the Covelo Fire District were airlifted due to dog bites. Though a correction was eventually made, the report originally stated the victims suffered from frostbite too. Commenters said the couple was attacked by their own pit bulls while trying to break up a dog fight. Two air ambulances were dispatched to pick up the couple; each ride can cost $30,000 or more. No other information was released about this attack.2

The second, and most violent attack, occurred on January 28 in the 200 block of Myers Avenue in Myers Flat.3 Commenters said the 35-year old female victim could lose both legs, so we added it to our Dog Bite Fatality Watch List. On January 29, the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office issued a press release about the attack. The victim was visiting the dog owner's property when his two pit bulls attacked her. We learned even more after a GoFundMe was created for Candis Danielson.

Shortly thereafter, two local media reports followed. Danielson had gone over to her neighbor’s house to help him with his generator during a power outage when the neighbor’s dogs got out of his trailer and attacked her, according to Aaron Merriman, an emergency medical services worker who responded to the scene. The two pit bulls then dragged Danielson under the owner's trailer and inflicted extensive damage to her legs and feet, Merriman told the Local Coast Outpost.4

Danielson's sister, Shiann Davis, created the GoFundMe page. Davis is a photographer and her boyfriend, Myles Cochrane, owns a pit bull. At this stage, the Outpost article destroyed our interest in the case, due to it including revolting propaganda from Cochrane, who had no involvement in the attack, but defends pit bulls (Cochrane formerly worked as program director at KSLG FM, owned by the Outpost’s parent company, Lost Coast Communication, Inc., noted the Outpost.)

"Dogs are one of the greatest gifts to humanity. Regardless of breed or size, if they’re raised right they will in all likelihood succeed. It’s unfathomable some humans have the luxury of being called a “gentle giant” yet many qualifying pit bulls don’t get the same privilege. That said, these particular dogs should never have had this opportunity at attempted murder." - Pit bull owner Myles Cochrane, January 29, 2021

Cochrane then deleted a photograph of his family pit bull on his Facebook page, possibly to protect his "media relations" reputation. That however, did not solve Cochrane's problem, given that his girlfriend is a photographer and has other pictures of Cochrane and his dog. Again, why did the Outpost publish Cochrane's anthropomorphic remark in the first place? Doing so served two purposes: to victimize pit bulls and to make advocates for victims of dog attacks gag.

No sooner had we tossed the Myers Flat story into the "Stories Not Worth Sharing" folder, when the Blackbelt released a devastating and detailed account of the attack by Danielson's fiance, Kenneth Swafford. Danielson is a mother of five children and was doing a favor for her neighbor (who commenters state is this man), when his pit bulls dragged her underneath a trailer and "feasted on her legs." Thus far, she has suffered a lower leg amputation below her right knee.

35-year-old Myers Flat woman, Candis Danielson, was attempting to help her neighbor on Thursday, January 28, 2021, when the neighbor’s two pit bulls attacked her, dragged her under a travel trailer, and “feasted on her legs,” resulting in the amputation of her right foot. Kenneth Swafford, Candis, and their children live together just four doors down from the dogs who attacked her. Swafford described the neighbor as disabled and unable to provide training and discipline to the dogs. According to Swafford, he and his fiancée had always been wary of the dogs and characterized them as “dangerous” knowing they had killed as many as 11 other dogs, including “eating their own puppies.” - Redheaded Blackbelt, January 30, 2021

When Swafford arrived at the hospital, he asked Myers Flat Fire Department Chief Aaron Merriman, "How bad is it?" The chief responded, “I haven’t seen anything like this since I was in the Marines.” When doctors told Swafford that Candice would likely need amputations, Swafford said he collapsed and his brother caught him before he hit the concrete. Swafford also wanted to make clear that he is "not a pit bull hater." He currently owns a pit bull as does his family.

Swafford wanted to make clear that he is “not a pit bull hater.” He said, “A blue-nosed pit has sat by me for 10 years and never been dangerous. Our family has another red-nosed pit that is safe.” He emphasized that “the dogs that attacked Candis are vicious and need put down.” - Redheaded Blackbelt, January 30, 2021

Vicious Dog Hearing

Samantha Kargas, the Public Information Office for the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department confirmed the dog's owner has a history of contacts with Humboldt County Animal Control. As of January 30, "One dog has been surrendered to our Animal Shelter and the owner has expressed interest in getting the other dog back," Kargas told the Blackbelt. Because the owner wants one of the dogs back, a hearing regarding whether that pit bull is dangerous or vicious will be held.

Reading the detailed account from the Blackbelt did not change our opinion of keeping the Myers Flat attack in the "Stories Not Worth Sharing" folder. The outcome is too painful. The owners of "good" pit bulls teaming up against the owner of "bad" pit bulls in a Zoom-based vicious dog hearing. We stated on Twitter that "we will take no part in," and we meant it, because none of the involved characters are willing to address the painfully obvious issues that matter the most.

The Red Herring Debate

This red herring debate, spurred by pit bull owners Cochrane and Swafford, is a deliberate distraction. It does not matter that one pit bull is "good" and another pit bull is "bad." What matters is the severity of injury when any pit bull inflicts a violent attack -- plenty of "good" family pit bulls are also culprits in these attacks. Permanent injuries, disfigurements and maimings are often the result. The "good" or "bad" pit bull red herring debate fails to prevent these devastating injuries.

Additionally, how many readers think the owner of the pit bulls that attacked Candis had an insurance policy on his dogs? (No one raise your hand.) How many readers think that Swafford or his family have coverage on their pit bulls? (No one raise your hand.) What about Cochrane? It is unlikely that Candis will receive compensation for her injuries from the dogs' owner. If Swafford's "good" pit bull attacks a child in the face, that child would likely face a similar bleak outcome.

Neither the owners of a "good" or "bad" pit bull can cover the exorbitant cost if their dog chooses to attack. Candis didn't just lose one foot, her other leg was severely injured too. Recall the dogs "feasted on her legs," as she lay trapped underneath the travel trailer. This was also a multi-pit bull attack, which can inflict exponentially more damage than one pit bull attacking. That Swafford adamantly did not want to be called a "pit bull hater," is yet another distraction that is irrelevant.

When asked in court by the Denver Assistant City Attorney how the level of dangerousness and potential damage changes when multiple pit bulls attack a human, versus one pit bull, Dr. Borchelt testified, "by an order of magnitude," meaning extremely worse. Furthermore, when asked by the City, "Is it your opinion that an attack upon a human by multiple pit bulls, in fact, is exponentially more dangerous than an attack by multiple dogs of other breeds?" Dr. Borchelt answered, "Yes." - DogsBite.org, February 28, 2018

Candis was first taken to Garberville Hospital then transferred to St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka, likely by air ambulance. Next, "when she can breath well without assistance," states the GoFundMe, she will receive treatment in San Francisco (possibly by an acute care burn unit). We estimate that $1 million is the starting point for her medical expenses. This is the only relevant issue, along with 33 years of continuing documentation about the severity of pit bull injuries.

The Commenters

We eventually did decide to write about the Myers Flat attack, but only in the context of the surge of attacks in the Humboldt County area. There was a third attack in January too. The day after Candis was terribly mauled, a pit bull attacked a 5-year old boy in the face in Covelo, which is part of Mendocino county and the Emerald Triangle. That dog fled afterward. The unnamed owner surrendered three dogs to authorities, but it is unknown if the actual biter was among them.

The Blackbelt has always had interesting commenters. The articles of the recent violent dog attacks are no different. There are over 120 comments on the January 29 attack. Commenter Diana even voiced our own thoughts closely. "Talking about 'good' and 'bad' dogs is silly and hides the point. Yes, dogs that are well cared for by knowledgeable and responsible owners are less of a danger to the general public. The point is, how bad does it get when things go wrong?"

"That’s not about good ownership -- labs have had plenty of terrible owners, but when things go wrong they are infinitely safer than pit bulls which, in the US make up no more than 7% of the total dog population, yet are responsible for over 60% of fatal attacks." - Commenter Diana

Finally, as we were writing this post, a GoFundMe was started for the February 5 victim. She was transported to St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka then airlifted "out of the area due to not having the proper medical care for her here," states the GoFundMe. She "has a long road of recovery ahead of her." She will need to "travel back to Sacramento for follow up visits," indicating that she was airlifted to the UC Davis trauma center, which reported these findings in a peer-reviewed study:

Results: "334 unique dog bites were identified, of which 101 involved the head and neck. The mean patient age was 15.1 ± 18.1 years. Of the more than 8 different breeds identified, one-third were caused by pit bull terriers and resulted in the highest rate of consultation (94%) and had 5 times the relative rate of surgical intervention. Unlike all other breeds, pit bull terriers were relatively more likely to attack an unknown individual (+31%), and without provocation (+48%)." - (O'Brien, 2015)

Myers Flat Addendum

On February 11, 2021, a Vicious and Dangerous Dog hearing was held. The pit bulls owned by Don Mertz, Hussy and Sissy, were declared vicious and ordered euthanized. Mertz is also prohibited from owning any dogs for up to three years. Sissy was surrendered at the scene. Mertz initially expressed interest in keeping Hussy, but he surrendered that dog the next day. Three people were injured during this brutal attack: Candis Danielson, Kirk Swafford, and Dave Rath.

Animal Control officer Taylor Pedersen said his agency has "an extensive history" with Mertz, which dates back to 2010 and involves other dogs, as well as Hussy and Sissy, reports the Blackbelt. Proving once again, that nuisance and dangerous dog laws are so poor they cannot even hinder a serial repeat offender until a catastrophe occurs. The most recent update on Candis' GoFundMe states that she lost more of her right leg; the amputation is now above the knee.

humboldt county red herring pit bull attack

The "good" pit bull vs. "bad" pit bull debate is a red herring -- a distraction by pit bull owners.

Murder Mountain is based on Humboldt County, where pit bull attacks have been surging.

1A commenter stated, regarding the adult facial bite in Eureka, "It’s believed the dog is a resident of an RV that’s been illegally camped/parked on the county side of the street for months. There have been complaints about the RV’s shady activity with no resolve. Very unfortunate an innocent person was attacked." Reporter Kim Kemp also stated in comments regarding the woman's injuries, "The description I was given was horrific."
2Covelo, population 1,140, is part of the Round Valley Indian Reservation.
3Myers Flat only has a population of 132 people, according to U.S. Census data.
4This could be the travel trailer that Candis was dragged under, while two pit bulls "feasted on her legs."

Posted on February 2, 2021 by Colleen Lynn

Estimated U.S. Cities, Counties, States and Military Housing with Breed-Specific Laws (2020-2021)

The top three regulated dog breeds: pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf-dog hybrids.

BSL Estimate 2020-2021
DogsBite.org - Since 2011, we have maintained an estimate of breed-specific laws across the United States, including breed-specific policies governing military housing. A decade ago, all three major military divisions -- U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Air Force -- banned a group of dangerous dog breeds, chiefly pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf-dog hybrids, due to the "unreasonable risk to the health and safety of personnel in family housing areas" these dog breeds pose.

Currently, our modest estimate shows that 1,200 cities, towns and villages regulate specific dog breeds for public safety purposes and 42 counties have enacted countywide breed safety laws too. Jurisdictions in 40 different states have enacted breed-specific ordinances. Our estimate also tracks international breed-specific laws. Currently there are jurisdictions in at least 54 countries with breed-specific laws. In 43 of those countries, the regulation is a national-level law.

Including: Argentina, Austria, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain, the United Kingdom and more.

Many U.S. municipalities with breed-specific laws are concentrated in the Midwest. Other states, primarily preemption states, have virtually no breed-specific laws. In the early 1980s, cities began enacting breed-specific laws in response to grisly pit bull maulings. By 1992, dogfighting and dog breeder interests had pushed through preemption laws in ten states, including three of the most populous, California, Florida and Texas, prohibiting local jurisdictions from adopting pit bull laws.

There have been many horrific fatal maulings carried out by pit bulls and rottweilers in these three states ever since (See: Deaths After State Preemption). The most recent state to pass legislation in this area is Washington, which enacted a mandatory exemption law. The law requires cities with existing or new breed-specific laws to provide an exemption for the owners of regulated breeds if their dog passes the American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen (CGC) test or its equivalent.

2020 Legislative News

2020 got underway with a lightening speed attempt to repeal the longstanding pit bull ban in Denver. That attempt was halted when Mayor Michael Hancock vetoed the legislation on Valentines Day. Meanwhile, the adjacent city of Aurora discussed repealing their pit bull ban as well. On election day, November 5, the citizens of Denver repealed the pit bull ban and replaced it with a provisional breed-restricted license that did not even mandate the sterilization of pit bulls.

On January 11, 2021, Aurora city council members repealed their pit bull ban and did not replace the repeal with any breed-specific measure.1

During 2020, we analyzed three years of bite statistics and injury severity data from Denver in anticipation of this repeal. We also analyzed three years of bite statistics, intake and euthanasia data from Aurora. Despite pit bulls having a lower population in both cities due to their enduring bans, pit bulls were still among the top-biting breeds. We estimate that bites and attacks inflicted by pit bulls in both cites will increase by a four-fold within five years of lifting their pit bull bans.

State Preemption Bills

In 2020, three states faced preemption bills that would bar local governments from enacting breed-specific laws, down from six states in 2018, nine states in 2016 and seven states in 2015. The bills in all three states -- Kentucky, Michigan and Missouri -- failed. These same three states face another round of preemption bills in 2021. Every year, a new round of preemption bills are brought in these states by Utah-based fighting dog advocates, Best Friends Animal Society.

In 2021, preemption bills in other states have been introduced by other sources as well, including Iowa and Mississippi. The House (HF 59) and Senate (SF 143) bills in Iowa are sponsored by the owners of pit bull-mixes or mixed-breeds. Both bills are also being driven by the Humane Society of the United States and their lobbying arm, HSLF, which uses a front group, "Stray Dog Policy," because the HSUS has a factory farming agenda that Midwest farming states typically reject.

"The Humane Society of the United States is lobbying for these bills. The same organization that took no action and made no statement after a pit bull belonging to Connecticut State HSUS director, Annie Hornish, killed an elderly woman visiting her home in 2019. Hornish misled authorities about how the woman died, claiming that she “fell” instead of suffering a Level 6 bite, which resulted in her death. For over a year, Hornish has fought all efforts to humanely euthanize the dog. Today, she remains in her position with the HSUS. Another group lobbying to pass both bills is “Stray Dog Policy,” which is funded by the lobbying arm of the HSUS, the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF). Stray Dog Policy is located at the same address as the HSLF Kansas office (HSLFKS.org). The entities are one in the same." - DogsBite.org, January 28, 2021

"One of the top officials of the Humane Society of the United States owns a killer pit bull -- is this really a surprise? The modern HSUS can be counted on no longer to promote a healthy relationship between people and dogs, as evidenced by the fact that it has staunchly refused to take a stand against the breeding of pit bulls. It refuses to recognize that this is the most abused, unwanted and dangerous type of dog, known for its savage, fatal attacks on its owners and its owners' children. This type of dog also commits 90% of the fatal attacks on other people's dogs, cats and horses. The HSUS, which normally would be expected to support the best interests of animal shelters, knows that pit bulls make up more than half the dogs in shelters, putting a huge financial strain on shelters and forcing them to push pit bulls on unsuspecting, good people who often are tricked into accepting this unsuitable, risky animal into their homes. If the HSUS cared about pets and people, it would speak out against the breeding of pit bulls. But instead, a high-level official of that organization turns out to be the owner of one of the 30 or 40 pit bulls which have killed an American this year. What a terrible reflection on a once noble organization." - Attorney Kenneth Phillips, DogBiteLaw.com, December 13, 2019

Rental & Housing Properties

A substantial source of breed-specific policies, which our estimate does not track, are the million-plus rental properties governed by breed-specific leases in all 50 states.2 Rental property and insurance companies assess risk. Insurance carriers may refuse coverage for apartments, condominiums and homes if a lease fails to prohibit dog breeds on their blacklist. Private rental properties, HOAs and insurance agencies are unaffected by municipal breed preemption laws.

When you combine the many types of breed-specific laws -- municipal ordinances, military policies, Indian reservation and public housing policies, insurance blacklists and the tens of millions of Americans living in private rental properties governed by breed-specific leases -- one gains a clearer picture of these breed safety laws. They are designed to prevent serious attacks by high-risk dog breeds that are well-documented in medical journals for inflicting severe injuries.

Our estimated summary of breed-specific laws is just one source of this prevention. When or if another state passes a preemption law peddled by an out-of-state special interest group, a source of this protection will be removed from that state, but other sources will remain, such as rental leases. Finally, the significance of breed-specific laws worldwide shows that the genetics of a dog breed remain the same, whether the dog lives in the U.S., France, South Korea or New Zealand.

Revised Website Section

In January, we released a revised section of the website, Breed Safety Laws, which emphasizes Model and Noted breed-specific ordinances. It also emphasizes Mandatory Spaying and Neutering ordinances, primarily aimed at pit bulls and other fighting breeds, from nine states. The latter being the most basic safety step a community can take when pit bulls are disproportionally biting, disproportionally occupying shelter space and disproportionately being euthanized.

Our collection of over 900 breed-specific ordinances by state now requires a login. Further, we do not anticipate updating this estimated breed-specific laws 2021 report until at least 2025 or beyond. Our mission is to track severe and fatal injuries disproportionately inflicted by a small group of dangerous dog breeds. Not to provide a "housing tool" for the owners of pit bulls or those seeking to place pit bulls, which is how our State-by-State section was primarily being used.

Estimated U.S. cities, counties, states and military housing with breed-specific laws 2021.

1Aurora resident Matt Snider plans to sue the city for overturning what he believes was the direction of voters in 2014: “The city council does not have the right or authority under the city charter nor the Colorado Constitution to nullify the expressed will and direction of the people and instead substitute their judgment on the issue.” | Quincy Snowdon, "Former state house candidate threatens to sue Aurora over reversal of pit bull ban," Sentinel Colorad, January 27, 2021 (sentinelcolorado.com)
2We could find no estimate for the vast number of rental properties governed by breed-specific leases, but breed restrictions are common. According to the National Multifamily Housing Council, over 43 million households are renter-occupied and comprise over 100 million residents (34% of the U.S. population), all of which are subject to a lease agreement. Nearly one-third of these residents, 27 million, rent a unit within a multi-unit rental property.

Posted on January 28, 2021 by Colleen Lynn

Why Aren't Dangerous Dog Owners Charged With Animal Cruelty? by Dog Lover - Perspectives of Advocates

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.

1Example of criminal intent: A person who possesses and trains dog(s) with the intent that such dog(s) engage in dogfighting can be charged with animal cruelty and animal fighting laws.

DogsBite blog ::