united-states pennsylvania dog
Questions about PA Dangerous Dog Laws
<p>I am the owner of a fear reactive/aggressive dog. I live in PA.</p>
<hr />
<p>Background</p>
<p>I take responsibility for all that my dog does, and I'm embarrassed and mortified beyond belief when he bites other dogs. I've never blamed anyone else. I believe everyone has the right to walk their dog without fear of their dog being attacked.</p>
<p>About a year and a half ago, I brought home a Belgian Tervuren. Having bred and raised high-intensity dogs (Border Collies) for 15 years, and looking for something a bit different (both of my remaining BC's were past ten years of age) I thought I could probably handle a Belgian Tervuren. To say it's a dog of a different color is an understatement.</p>
<p>In any case, at about 5-6 months, he began having fear issues, he was afraid of humans and other dogs. He bit a neighbor's dog, so I put up a fence. He squeezed through the fence with slats every 3 and 7/8 inches and bit another dog. (in neither case did the dogs sustain more than superficial scratches to the back. So I put up heavy deer netting inside the fence. At no time was he outside without me and a leash and harness. When he saw a dog that particularly riled him, he tore through the netting and was outside the fence, with me holding a leash and an empty harness. Again, though he attacked the dog, nothing serious happened (I had everyone get their dogs checked by vets and paid the bills.)</p>
<p>To make a long story a bit shorter, he never escaped the yard once I put in 18 gauge hardware cloth. Great! The police (called each time) warned me one more event and they would take me and my dog to court. Fair enough.</p>
<p>Last week, on getting home from grocery shopping, I didn't see that a woman was walking two small dogs nearby. On unloading my dog, he spotted them before me, and within a second, I was left holding an empty collar on a leash. He inflicted a 3 inch laceration on the dogs left thigh. I was mortified. I apologized profusely and offered to take the dog to the vet immediately. The owner declined.</p>
<p>Now the police are issuing a number of citations and summonses, and they are going to try to get my dog classified as a dangerous dog.</p>
<hr />
<p>My understanding of the <a href="https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Animals/DogLaw/Dangerous%20Dogs/Pages/default.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dangerous dog law in PA</a> is that the dog is dangerous if it has:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Inflicted severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property.</p>
<p>Killed or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal, dog or cat without provocation while off the owner’s property.</p>
<p>Attacked a human being without provocation.</p>
<p>Been used in the commission of a crime.</p>
<p>Has a history of attacking human beings and/or domestic animals, dogs or cats without provocation.</p>
<p>Has a propensity to attack human beings and/or domestic animals, dogs or cats without provocation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>I think it's pretty clear that my dog may very well fill that shoe by virtue of that last condition.</strong></p>
<p>They further add:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Severe injury is defined as, [3 P.S. § 459-102] “Any physical injury that results in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note my dog has never severely injured an animal. The very worst he's done was a superficial laceration on the inner thigh of a small dog, requiring sutures and probably antibiotics. But in PA, the magistrate hearing the case has the ability to broadly interpret the law.</p>
<p>I understand that if my dog is declared a dangerous dog, I will need to reinforce my enclosure, keep him muzzled whenever off my property, post large signs regarding &quot;dangerous dog&quot;, and insure the dog for $50,000, post a surety bond of $50K in the event he bites a person (he has not, and is no longer aggressive towards people.)</p>
<hr />
<p>The question:</p>
<p>Tonight I spoke to a trainer who advertised that he worked with aggressive GSDs and Belgian Malinois for police work. When I told him of my dog's problems, he told me that he was a former police offer, and this is what would happen if the dog is declared dangerous:</p>
<p>I will either have to euthanize my dog, or, will have to post $250,000 bond, will lose my home owner's insurance (I already spoke to my insurance agent who had reassured me that I would not lose my home owner's insurance), and..., and..., and. When I questioned him on where he got his information, he told me he was actively involved as a police officer in getting dogs declared dangerous. When I cited the law I had read (thrice), he just insisted he knew what happens and that I was wrong.</p>
<p><strong>My question is: Is this really what happens to people whose dogs are determined as dangerous?</strong></p>

<p>I find 3 P. S. § §  459-503-A, the &quot;Dangerous Dog law&quot; online at:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-3-ps-agriculture/pa-st-sect-3-459-502-a.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-3-ps-agriculture/pa-st-sect-3-459-502-a.html</a> and <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-3-ps-agriculture/pa-st-sect-3-459-503-a.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-3-ps-agriculture/pa-st-sect-3-459-503-a.html</a> (law split across two web pages)</p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/007/chapter27/chap27toc.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/007/chapter27/chap27toc.html</a></p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.animallaw.info/statute/pa-dog-law-chapter-8-dogs-consolidated-dog-laws#s502" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.animallaw.info/statute/pa-dog-law-chapter-8-dogs-consolidated-dog-laws#s502</a></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>as well as the dept of agriculture page linked in the question. All of these sources agree in detail, and all specify the $50,000 amount for the insurance and the same amount for the bond (which are separate). None agree with what the self-described ex-policeman is quoted as saying in the question.</p>
<p>Moreover, all of them indicate that a &quot;dangerous dog&quot; is one that the magistrate finds fits <strong>both</strong> (1) and (2) below:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) The dog has done any of the following:</p>
<p>(i) Inflicted severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property.</p>
<p>(ii) Killed or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal, dog or cat without provocation while off the owner's property.</p>
<p>(iii) Attacked a human being without provocation.</p>
<p>(iv) Been used in the commission of a crime.</p>
<p>(2) The dog has either or both of the following:</p>
<p>(i) A history of attacking human beings and/or domestic animals, dogs or cats without provocation.</p>
<p>(ii) A propensity to attack human beings and/or domestic animals, dogs or cats without provocation.  A propensity to attack may be proven by a single incident of the conduct described in paragraph (1)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As described in the question, (2) seems to clearly apply but (1) does not. However, a magistrate might find the dog to be dangerous even if the strict requirements are not met, and it is not clear if there is an appeal in such a case. And all this is based only on the statements in the question. Facts not stated there could lead to a different result.</p>
<p>The owner would be wise to consult a lawyer on this point. But it does not seem that the ex-policeman was accurately stating the law.</p>
