Florida's new Dog Laws - Owners beware!
- Thread starter DD4MSpock
- Start date
I actually agree with most of it. I agree 100% that any dog, whether it's a XL Bully or a Pomeranian, should be confined to your property at all times unless you take it somewhere. This would solve 99.9% of every single dog attack that doesn't involve its own family. If you live in a place with no yard, then every single potty break should be on leash. The town I live in has so many friggin loose dogs. There's a fence cure for every dog that has dug under or climbed over. There is zero excuse for loose dogs. If your dog growls or barks at strangers while in public and on leash, get a bark collar, an e-collar, whatever it takes and train your dog to be polite or quit taking it to public places. Use a dog club or a dog park to train your dog while on leash to be a good citizen. No excuses. This would have brought me down because my dog was extremely reactive as a youngster. But if the laws were like that one, I may have trained harder and faster to get her in line. My only teacher at the time was PP/FF and that wasn't working at all, Bottom line, is what I've believed in my whole life: Be Responsible. Train your dog. That's all it takes to save your dog from making bad decisions that will cost it its life. Nobody deserves to die by a pack of loose dogs while doing their job. Those bad apples make us all pay.
This is what happens when you have to legislate stupid. It does seem thought out well enough that responsible owners won't be affected much.
One thing that does trouble me is lawmakers throw around words like aggressive and vicious way too much. I guess that applies to people in general, now just lawmakers but I feel strongly that most just don't understand dog behavior.. That's sad because dogs get labled wrongly and that can cost them their life.
DD4MSpock
Hot Topics Subscriber
Well, this particular legislation was in response to Postal worker Pam Rock being bitten and killed while on route. I'd imagine public reaction was quite severe, and the media hyped it up and used those words to effect the legislation.
BG1
Hot Topics Subscriber
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. A lot of authority granted to "Animal Control" with ambiguous language equals some possibilities for controversy.
Good news the legislation identifies "dangerous dogs" by demonstrated behavior, not breed, and carries authority to intervene proactively and require accountability from the two-legged...with consequences.
Sadly, too many nitwits who cant be responsible means "this is why we cant have nice things".
A quick search with the help of my research assistant says each county or municipality decides how to fund and run its own Animal Control, but there is a central training entity:
factc.us
And an Animal Control advocacy entity:
So hopefully some best practices will emerge quickly.
Good news the legislation identifies "dangerous dogs" by demonstrated behavior, not breed, and carries authority to intervene proactively and require accountability from the two-legged...with consequences.
Sadly, too many nitwits who cant be responsible means "this is why we cant have nice things".
A quick search with the help of my research assistant says each county or municipality decides how to fund and run its own Animal Control, but there is a central training entity:
Florida Animal Control Training Commission – Certification Training For Animal Care and Control Professionals
The Florida Animal Control Training Commission is the premier certification training provider for Florida animal care and control professionals.
factc.us
And an Animal Control advocacy entity:
So hopefully some best practices will emerge quickly.
BG1
Hot Topics Subscriber
I hadn't heard of this incident so I did a search:
Its complicated:
blog.dogsbite.org
Its complicated:
2022 Dog Bite Fatality: Rural Postal Carrier Dies After Vicious Attack by Pack of Dogs in Putnam County, Florida
Pam Rock, 61, a rural postal carrier, was killed by a pack of dogs in Interlachen, Florida. No Charges After Mauling UPDATE 03/03/23: The State Attorney’s Office is not filing charges against the owner of a dog pack that killed
blog.dogsbite.org
BG1
Hot Topics Subscriber
Lurkers/noobs reading here:
Lots to think about for anyone adopting a breed with a reputation:
www.forbes.com
Lots to think about for anyone adopting a breed with a reputation:
Dog Breeds Banned By Home Insurance Companies
The average dog bite homeowners insurance claim cost is $69,272, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Some home insurance companies even have a list of banned breeds, including Akitas, Pit bulls, Chow Chows and Rottweilers. We analyzed banned dog breed lists from 42 homeowners insuranc
www.forbes.com
First off, that poor postal worker died a horrible death. I can't even imagine being mauled to death by a pack of dogs! I would definitely consider those dangerous dogs. Maybe it's the mob Mania aspect of it, but what makes a pack of dogs attack a human like that? That pretty horrible.
Second, I'm a big believer of keeping your dog on your own property. Even if they're off leash. A fence, or some kind of invisible fence, leash or just trained! I think the hardest thing is walking your dog on leash through a neighborhood and encountering loose dogs. My friends and I have encountered that on horseback! Always a scary thing! That's all we need is a dog spooking the horses. And if my horse kicks back, it's not their fault! Get your dog!
In all the years living here I have rarely walked my dog down these roads. Luckily I don't have to with 10 acres. I do have a friend who likes to walk her Great Dane and she knows the area that she walks quite well and never has a problem.
I have a bad taste in my mouth regarding Animal Control.
A lot of people out here have the same taste. I have a story of two rottweilers that I don't know if I've ever told here. I'll try and make a long story short.
My friend and I were alerted by another neighbor that there were two rottweilers walking the road. They were a male and a female and quite young. Maybe a year or two? About a half mile down from my house. We went down to investigate and found they were skittish but not dangerous. I said they're very young. I can't imagine that they are mean. They followed us around but never let us touch them. We got some treats for them and they scarfed it up. They were thin but not too thin. No collars.
We ended up calling the police and when he came he was very nice about it. He actually said if we can get them in my car he would take them somewhere. Well, we tried. I even got in the car to try and coax them to me but they were too skittish. But you can tell they were very friendly.
I tried calling a few people that I knew that either do rescue with a facility or just rescue on their own. One was a guy that someone knew who raised Rottweilers. In the meantime, somebody called animal control.
At that point the dogs scattered and we couldn't find them. In talking with animal control the guy just turned me off completely. His attitude was well, let's just say he made it sound like if he gets them, they are as good as dead. Because I asked, what are you going to do with them when you find them? And he kind of went on a rant about people and their emotions with animals and at one point he actually had me tears! He was being so cold and I thought, I don't want this man to find these dogs!! We're going to find them first!
The man that was helping who raised the Rottweilers said the same thing. He said this guy is being an ass. And we were hell-bent on finding the dogs first. This went into the next day and I went down the road again in the morning with some hamburger and found one of the dogs! The male. I kept giving him the hamburger until he was eating out of my hand! I called the man who was helping me and said please get here as soon as possible! This dog is wonderful and should not be in the hands of animal control! I still had Kali but no Doberman at the time. And I was this close to taking that dog! But I didn't know Rottweilers that well and this man did. He even said he looked well bred.
So he met up with me and took the dog. Later he came back and we searched for the female. Animal control showed up again and we just told him we couldn't find them.
They can just go jump as far as we were concerned!
And the sad ending to all of this was that the female was found dead on the 2 lane Highway about 2 miles away from our area. I don't know how they got separated. And I cried like a baby when I heard about it! Kicking myself that we just didn't somehow corral them for the night. But we just weren't sure how they'd react when forced or confined.
I called the guy who took the male and he had already been alerted about the female and was at the scene. Checking for a chip and finding nothing. I think he even took the remains to bury. He was really a great guy and such a great help. We need more people like that. Not like this animal control guy who seemed so heartless! I don't think I'll ever call them again.
Second, I'm a big believer of keeping your dog on your own property. Even if they're off leash. A fence, or some kind of invisible fence, leash or just trained! I think the hardest thing is walking your dog on leash through a neighborhood and encountering loose dogs. My friends and I have encountered that on horseback! Always a scary thing! That's all we need is a dog spooking the horses. And if my horse kicks back, it's not their fault! Get your dog!
In all the years living here I have rarely walked my dog down these roads. Luckily I don't have to with 10 acres. I do have a friend who likes to walk her Great Dane and she knows the area that she walks quite well and never has a problem.I have a bad taste in my mouth regarding Animal Control.
A lot of people out here have the same taste. I have a story of two rottweilers that I don't know if I've ever told here. I'll try and make a long story short.My friend and I were alerted by another neighbor that there were two rottweilers walking the road. They were a male and a female and quite young. Maybe a year or two? About a half mile down from my house. We went down to investigate and found they were skittish but not dangerous. I said they're very young. I can't imagine that they are mean. They followed us around but never let us touch them. We got some treats for them and they scarfed it up. They were thin but not too thin. No collars.
We ended up calling the police and when he came he was very nice about it. He actually said if we can get them in my car he would take them somewhere. Well, we tried. I even got in the car to try and coax them to me but they were too skittish. But you can tell they were very friendly.
I tried calling a few people that I knew that either do rescue with a facility or just rescue on their own. One was a guy that someone knew who raised Rottweilers. In the meantime, somebody called animal control.
At that point the dogs scattered and we couldn't find them. In talking with animal control the guy just turned me off completely. His attitude was well, let's just say he made it sound like if he gets them, they are as good as dead. Because I asked, what are you going to do with them when you find them? And he kind of went on a rant about people and their emotions with animals and at one point he actually had me tears! He was being so cold and I thought, I don't want this man to find these dogs!! We're going to find them first!
The man that was helping who raised the Rottweilers said the same thing. He said this guy is being an ass. And we were hell-bent on finding the dogs first. This went into the next day and I went down the road again in the morning with some hamburger and found one of the dogs! The male. I kept giving him the hamburger until he was eating out of my hand! I called the man who was helping me and said please get here as soon as possible! This dog is wonderful and should not be in the hands of animal control! I still had Kali but no Doberman at the time. And I was this close to taking that dog! But I didn't know Rottweilers that well and this man did. He even said he looked well bred.
So he met up with me and took the dog. Later he came back and we searched for the female. Animal control showed up again and we just told him we couldn't find them.
They can just go jump as far as we were concerned!And the sad ending to all of this was that the female was found dead on the 2 lane Highway about 2 miles away from our area. I don't know how they got separated. And I cried like a baby when I heard about it! Kicking myself that we just didn't somehow corral them for the night. But we just weren't sure how they'd react when forced or confined.
I called the guy who took the male and he had already been alerted about the female and was at the scene. Checking for a chip and finding nothing. I think he even took the remains to bury. He was really a great guy and such a great help. We need more people like that. Not like this animal control guy who seemed so heartless! I don't think I'll ever call them again.
DD4MSpock
Hot Topics Subscriber
I trust the death was "automobile related" (an accident) and was not "deliberate" (i.e. someone murdering the dog and just leaving it there). Were they able to confirm a cause of death? Given what you said about "animal control..." well.....
What a sad story....reminds me of a friend I had in highschool, who moved to Indiana with her doberman....he got out when she was not home, and someone shot him. She found him a day later on the side of the road. He was the first doberman in my life, and how I got hooked on the breed.
Unfortunately I see that all too often and it gives too many LEOs bad names because of those few.
BG1
Hot Topics Subscriber
strykerdobe
Hot Topics Subscriber
Ohio also just changed Dog Laws.
The bill calls for other key changes:
House Bill 247 will go into effect on March 18, 2026.
Changes to Ohio's dog laws
Under House Bill 247, owners of dangerous dogs would be required to keep their animals locked away when an invitee is on their property.The bill calls for other key changes:
- Courts would be required to order euthanasia of a dog after it kills or seriously injures a human being. Current law only mandates euthanasia if a vicious dog kills a second person.
- Owners of dangerous or vicious dogs would be required to buy at least $100,000 in liability insurance.
- Fees for annual registration of dangerous or vicious dogs would double to $100.
- Dogs will be impounded by the county shelter while a case is pending. The owner has to pay the cost, unless the dog is later not found to be dangerous.
- Owners could face stiffer criminal penalties if they negligently fail to prevent their dog from biting or attacking someone.
- Dog wardens would be explicitly empowered to make arrests and enforce the dog laws.
- Impose criminal penalties on a dog owner if he or she negligently fails to keep their dog from committing, without provocation, an attack;
- Give the local dog warden the authority to seize a dog immediately following such an attack;
- Revise the investigation and enforcement requirements for when an authority receives any complaint that indicates a possible violation of any provision of the Dog Law;
- Include protections for dogs that are defending themselves, their owners, or their property;
- After receiving due process, mandate termination of the dog if it kills or seriously injures a person.
House Bill 247 will go into effect on March 18, 2026.
Dear God, I never even thought about that! I just assumed it was an accident. It's a two lane Highway with 55 mph limit. And most people go beyond that. There's a few homes scattered but mainly woods and Farmers fields on either side. I wasn't even exactly sure where she was found. I just assumed it was closer to our area, since that's where we first saw them.I trust the death was "automobile related" (an accident) and was not "deliberate" (i.e. someone murdering the dog and just leaving it there). Were they able to confirm a cause of death? Given what you said about "animal control..." well.....
I understand about the tragic loss. I can't even imagine the horror the postal worker endured.
I just get concerned when people start throwing around words when they don't even understand what they are talking about.
If someone were to watch 2 doberman play they may start down a road that can't be stopped.
I guess my point is that dogs get blamed for what stupid people do.
That reminds me of a case where it "could" have happened to Della. I left her in my hotel room for literally minutes to run to my vehicle to grab something quick. In those couple minutes the hotel accidently gave my room to someone else and she said much to her surprise there was a Doberman sitting on the bed like a statue looking at her. Thankfully Della was just watchful and the gal they gave the key to the room was a judge with GSDs herself. It could have been a different story if it was Albert and I'm sure it would have turned into my fault in some way. At any rate, the people who live in that town said that they will keep the dog locked up for at least 3 weeks if something like that happens.
Just saw this on FB. I don't follow this guy or know him, but because of his protection sports connection it came up on my feed. Long read, but how the word vicious can set up a bad outcome...
Clay Smith ·
1h ·
I Testified About Two Dogs the Court Called Vicious, Here’s What I Wish More People Understood.
When “Vicious” Becomes a Legal Label: A Dog Trainer’s Day in Court
I’ve worked with dogs professionally for 26 years. I’ve handled three dual-purpose police K9s. I spent around ten years as an instructor with a police K9 vendor that trained and placed dogs across the United States. And about twelve years ago, I built my own training business, helping everyday pet owners and also working with higher-drive dogs in more advanced settings.
So when I say I’m no stranger to real aggression, I mean it.
I’ve handled dogs that had to be muzzled just to be around people. Police Dogs that would "climb the leash" at the slightest sign of conflict. Dogs that came unglued the moment they saw a stranger. Dogs that tried to climb a fence to get to another dog. Dogs that broke away from their handler and went straight into a fight with zero warning.
That’s what dangerous behavior looks like.
Websters defines "vicious" as dangerously aggressive, marked by violence or ferocity.
The definition of bite: to seize especially with teeth or jaws so as to enter grip, wound, to wound, pierce, or sting especially with a fang...
This case wasn’t that.
The back gate, the work truck, and two dogs that slipped out
Two female Belgian Malinois, sisters from separate litters, were at the center of a court case I recently testified in.
Here’s what happened, as it was presented in court:
The owners had hired a repair technician to come to their home. After the technician finished and left, the owners let the dogs out into the back yard. What they didn’t realize was that the repair tech had left the gate open.
That open gate created the perfect storm: the dogs slipped out and got loose.
After that incident, the owners were cited for failure to confine and for having vicious dogs. And the prosecutor was seeking the most extreme outcome, seize the dogs and euthanize them.
Not a fine. Not added restrictions. Not “fix the fencing and take a class.” Which I might add the owners had already done. To the tune of about a 20K investment in these things before ever making it to court.
The prosecutor wanted...a death sentence.
Why I got involved.
After the escape incident, the owners reached out to me for training. I accepted both dogs for board-and-train:
Each dog stayed with me about 7 weeks independently. Then they spent about 3 weeks together. The dogs lived in my home, not just in a kennel run. And here’s what stood out to me: these were pet quality dogs.
They had: low food drive, low play drive, moderate-low energy, and a very nice “off switch” in the home, especially on their place cots
Because the escape itself was a concern, we focused heavily on real-world safety work: threshold training (doors, gates, boundaries), structured place cot work, recalls (including off-leash in controlled public settings), calm exposure to normal life: parks, people, other dogs, kids.
During their time with me, they were around: multiple other client dogs (large and small), my adult male Malinois (including Mink IYKYK), my two dachshunds, children in my home, visiting relatives, and kids at public parks.
And in all of that time, I observed no human aggression and no animal aggression. They weren’t working prospects, and honestly, their low drive would make reliable task training questionable, but what they were NOT was vicious.
The courtroom: what I saw and what I heard
An attorney for the owners contacted me and asked if I would testify for the owners regarding the dogs’ temperament and training. I agreed as soon as he told me the prosecutor was wanting the dogs killed.
I was not there when the dogs escaped. I wasn’t a fact witness to the incident. But I had spent a lot of time with the dogs, trained them, lived with them, and evaluated them through real-life exposure.
When I sat in the courtroom, I watched the prosecutor present the story. We were shown video from a neighbor’s security camera: the work truck leaves, and soon after, the dogs come out, running around together, moving quickly, and appearing more playful than predatory.
Then I listened to the key witness testimony.
A witness stated she was on her back porch when she heard dogs fighting and yelping. She ran around the corner and noticed her Labrador’s hair was wet around the neck. She believed that meant her dog had been "attacked". The word was used several times during testimony.
She also stated that in the garage, one of the Malinois came" toward her", as she was taking her dog inside and then "picked up a toy and ran off".
Most importantly: she was very clear that her dog had no injuries: no puncture wounds, no visible damage, no bleeding, nothing that would suggest a true bite with any pressure or intent.
Her conclusion of “attack” was based on sound, chaos, and saliva.
And yes, her dog was also, not confined, and loose, albeit on her own property.
When my testimony got cut short.
When the defense called me, my testimony was quickly objected to because I wasn’t a witness to the escape event. The judge dismissed me from the stand, with the possibility of calling me back after the verdict for any sentencing-related issues.
That’s not me complaining, that’s simply the reality of court procedure. If you’re in a case like this, you need to understand: a trainer can be valuable, but how they’re presented matters. Timing matters. Foundations matter. The attorney needs to build the lane for that testimony long before the hearing.
The ruling: guilty of failure to confine, and “vicious” on top of it.
The judge ruled the owners guilty of failure to confine.
Even if the technician left the gate open, the legal responsibility still falls on the owner to secure the dogs. I don’t love it, but I understood that part and expected it.
But the judge also ruled that the dogs were "vicious" based on testimony, finding that they had attacked and bitten the other dog, and that the witness testimony supported it.
That is the part that troubled me.
“A bite isn’t a bite” is not just semantics
Let me be careful here: dogs can absolutely be dangerous, and there are irresponsible owners who shouldn’t have certain dogs, or any dogs.
But in my experience, when a dog truly attacks with intent and makes meaningful contact, there is injury. There is damage consistent with teeth, pressure, puncture, tearing, bruising, or trauma, and in most cases continued intent.
Dogs can: play rough, mouth each other, chase, yelp and make noise, sound worse than it is.
That’s part of normal dog interaction, especially when arousal is high and owners are trying to separate them. And that is not just with big dogs. That just seems to be when people are the most scared of it.
I’ve seen real dog fights. I’ve seen rough play. And I’ve seen the difference. I didn't have to be present to hear the difference here.
A helpful comparison is kids: we can usually tell the difference between kids fighting and kids wrestling in the yard, even if it’s loud and chaotic. Dogs have the same spectrum of behavior.
What stood out to me in this case was bite inhibition and behavior inconsistent with committed aggression: a dog that is truly locked in on aggression typically doesn’t disengage to select a random toy it didn’t even know existed.
The bigger issue: once “vicious” is on paper, everything changes
Here’s the part most people don’t understand until they’re living it:
When a dog is formally labeled “vicious” (or “dangerous”) in a jurisdiction, it can trigger serious downstream consequences, sometimes far beyond the original incident:
Insurance problems: some companies cancel coverage or exclude the dog, and owners may struggle to find replacement coverage.
Housing restrictions: rentals, HOAs, and even some municipalities may impose restrictions, fines, or removal requirements.
Mandatory confinement rules: special enclosures, signage, muzzling, registration, higher licensing fees, requirements vary widely.
Low tolerance for future incidents: another escape, even without injury, can turn into seizure and euthanasia proceedings fast, and that basically what was told to the owners.
Euthanasia becomes a “solution” on the table: and in some cases, (by the prosecutor in this case), it’s pursued aggressively.
Whether you agree with every part of that system or not, it’s the landscape owners face.
The most important part of my testimony was to hopefully provide enough grounds for the judge to spare the life of these two dogs. Innocent dogs. In that we were successful.
Why these owners made the decision to rehome.
The owners decided to rehome both of these girls.
Not because the dogs are aggressive.
Not because they don’t love them.
Not because they’re “bad owners.”
They’re doing it because they love the dogs and don’t want to risk them being seized and euthanized if anything ever happens again like a dog running out the door, especially now that the dogs have been deemed “vicious” in the eyes of the court.
That’s a heartbreaking decision, and I don’t take it lightly. Is it what is best for the dogs lives. Certainly no, they are in a loving home, with owners who want them, but have decided that the risk of execution is just to great. So in the interest of sparing the dogs from that they decided to find a suitable home.
What I wish would change.
I don’t pretend to have the perfect answer for the legal system. There are truly dangerous dogs out there, and public safety matters.
But I do believe we need better education and better standards around how “bite,” “attack,” and “vicious” determinations are made, especially at the animal control / welfare level where these cases often start.
At a minimum, decisions should weigh: injury evidence (or lack of it), veterinary documentation, bite pressure / puncture / bruising indicators, witness interpretation vs physical facts, behavior context and dog history, and professional evaluation when appropriate.
Words like “vicious” shouldn’t be applied casually. They carry real, permanent consequences for these animals, these pets, these family members.
If you ever end up in this type of case.
If you’re facing citations, dangerous-dog allegations, or anything that could put your dog at risk:
Get an attorney early. Have the attorney meet with your trainer ahead of time. Document everything: training logs, evaluations, vet records, photos, videos. Take containment seriously immediately: gates, locks, signage, redundancy.
Understand that court is not a training session: procedure matters, and evidence rules matter.
Labeling a dog as “vicious” is a serious thing. In this case, it felt like the prosecutor was pursuing a death sentence for what looked, to me, like the canine equivalent of disorderly conduct and trespass.
And that should concern anyone who cares about fairness, public safety, and animal welfare.
If you’re a dog owner dealing with escape behaviors, gate rushing, poor recall, or high-arousal chaos, those issues can be improved with the right structure and training plan.
If you need help building real-world reliability, threshold manners, place work, recall, and calm behavior around distractions, please reach out to a local trainer and address those issues early.
If you or someone you know is interested in adopting one or both of these Malinois, shoot me a message and I will put you in touch directly with their owners..
Clay Smith ·
Follow
1h · I Testified About Two Dogs the Court Called Vicious, Here’s What I Wish More People Understood.
When “Vicious” Becomes a Legal Label: A Dog Trainer’s Day in Court
I’ve worked with dogs professionally for 26 years. I’ve handled three dual-purpose police K9s. I spent around ten years as an instructor with a police K9 vendor that trained and placed dogs across the United States. And about twelve years ago, I built my own training business, helping everyday pet owners and also working with higher-drive dogs in more advanced settings.
So when I say I’m no stranger to real aggression, I mean it.
I’ve handled dogs that had to be muzzled just to be around people. Police Dogs that would "climb the leash" at the slightest sign of conflict. Dogs that came unglued the moment they saw a stranger. Dogs that tried to climb a fence to get to another dog. Dogs that broke away from their handler and went straight into a fight with zero warning.
That’s what dangerous behavior looks like.
Websters defines "vicious" as dangerously aggressive, marked by violence or ferocity.
The definition of bite: to seize especially with teeth or jaws so as to enter grip, wound, to wound, pierce, or sting especially with a fang...
This case wasn’t that.
The back gate, the work truck, and two dogs that slipped out
Two female Belgian Malinois, sisters from separate litters, were at the center of a court case I recently testified in.
Here’s what happened, as it was presented in court:
The owners had hired a repair technician to come to their home. After the technician finished and left, the owners let the dogs out into the back yard. What they didn’t realize was that the repair tech had left the gate open.
That open gate created the perfect storm: the dogs slipped out and got loose.
After that incident, the owners were cited for failure to confine and for having vicious dogs. And the prosecutor was seeking the most extreme outcome, seize the dogs and euthanize them.
Not a fine. Not added restrictions. Not “fix the fencing and take a class.” Which I might add the owners had already done. To the tune of about a 20K investment in these things before ever making it to court.
The prosecutor wanted...a death sentence.
Why I got involved.
After the escape incident, the owners reached out to me for training. I accepted both dogs for board-and-train:
Each dog stayed with me about 7 weeks independently. Then they spent about 3 weeks together. The dogs lived in my home, not just in a kennel run. And here’s what stood out to me: these were pet quality dogs.
They had: low food drive, low play drive, moderate-low energy, and a very nice “off switch” in the home, especially on their place cots
Because the escape itself was a concern, we focused heavily on real-world safety work: threshold training (doors, gates, boundaries), structured place cot work, recalls (including off-leash in controlled public settings), calm exposure to normal life: parks, people, other dogs, kids.
During their time with me, they were around: multiple other client dogs (large and small), my adult male Malinois (including Mink IYKYK), my two dachshunds, children in my home, visiting relatives, and kids at public parks.
And in all of that time, I observed no human aggression and no animal aggression. They weren’t working prospects, and honestly, their low drive would make reliable task training questionable, but what they were NOT was vicious.
The courtroom: what I saw and what I heard
An attorney for the owners contacted me and asked if I would testify for the owners regarding the dogs’ temperament and training. I agreed as soon as he told me the prosecutor was wanting the dogs killed.
I was not there when the dogs escaped. I wasn’t a fact witness to the incident. But I had spent a lot of time with the dogs, trained them, lived with them, and evaluated them through real-life exposure.
When I sat in the courtroom, I watched the prosecutor present the story. We were shown video from a neighbor’s security camera: the work truck leaves, and soon after, the dogs come out, running around together, moving quickly, and appearing more playful than predatory.
Then I listened to the key witness testimony.
A witness stated she was on her back porch when she heard dogs fighting and yelping. She ran around the corner and noticed her Labrador’s hair was wet around the neck. She believed that meant her dog had been "attacked". The word was used several times during testimony.
She also stated that in the garage, one of the Malinois came" toward her", as she was taking her dog inside and then "picked up a toy and ran off".
Most importantly: she was very clear that her dog had no injuries: no puncture wounds, no visible damage, no bleeding, nothing that would suggest a true bite with any pressure or intent.
Her conclusion of “attack” was based on sound, chaos, and saliva.
And yes, her dog was also, not confined, and loose, albeit on her own property.
When my testimony got cut short.
When the defense called me, my testimony was quickly objected to because I wasn’t a witness to the escape event. The judge dismissed me from the stand, with the possibility of calling me back after the verdict for any sentencing-related issues.
That’s not me complaining, that’s simply the reality of court procedure. If you’re in a case like this, you need to understand: a trainer can be valuable, but how they’re presented matters. Timing matters. Foundations matter. The attorney needs to build the lane for that testimony long before the hearing.
The ruling: guilty of failure to confine, and “vicious” on top of it.
The judge ruled the owners guilty of failure to confine.
Even if the technician left the gate open, the legal responsibility still falls on the owner to secure the dogs. I don’t love it, but I understood that part and expected it.
But the judge also ruled that the dogs were "vicious" based on testimony, finding that they had attacked and bitten the other dog, and that the witness testimony supported it.
That is the part that troubled me.
“A bite isn’t a bite” is not just semantics
Let me be careful here: dogs can absolutely be dangerous, and there are irresponsible owners who shouldn’t have certain dogs, or any dogs.
But in my experience, when a dog truly attacks with intent and makes meaningful contact, there is injury. There is damage consistent with teeth, pressure, puncture, tearing, bruising, or trauma, and in most cases continued intent.
Dogs can: play rough, mouth each other, chase, yelp and make noise, sound worse than it is.
That’s part of normal dog interaction, especially when arousal is high and owners are trying to separate them. And that is not just with big dogs. That just seems to be when people are the most scared of it.
I’ve seen real dog fights. I’ve seen rough play. And I’ve seen the difference. I didn't have to be present to hear the difference here.
A helpful comparison is kids: we can usually tell the difference between kids fighting and kids wrestling in the yard, even if it’s loud and chaotic. Dogs have the same spectrum of behavior.
What stood out to me in this case was bite inhibition and behavior inconsistent with committed aggression: a dog that is truly locked in on aggression typically doesn’t disengage to select a random toy it didn’t even know existed.
The bigger issue: once “vicious” is on paper, everything changes
Here’s the part most people don’t understand until they’re living it:
When a dog is formally labeled “vicious” (or “dangerous”) in a jurisdiction, it can trigger serious downstream consequences, sometimes far beyond the original incident:
Insurance problems: some companies cancel coverage or exclude the dog, and owners may struggle to find replacement coverage.
Housing restrictions: rentals, HOAs, and even some municipalities may impose restrictions, fines, or removal requirements.
Mandatory confinement rules: special enclosures, signage, muzzling, registration, higher licensing fees, requirements vary widely.
Low tolerance for future incidents: another escape, even without injury, can turn into seizure and euthanasia proceedings fast, and that basically what was told to the owners.
Euthanasia becomes a “solution” on the table: and in some cases, (by the prosecutor in this case), it’s pursued aggressively.
Whether you agree with every part of that system or not, it’s the landscape owners face.
The most important part of my testimony was to hopefully provide enough grounds for the judge to spare the life of these two dogs. Innocent dogs. In that we were successful.
Why these owners made the decision to rehome.
The owners decided to rehome both of these girls.
Not because the dogs are aggressive.
Not because they don’t love them.
Not because they’re “bad owners.”
They’re doing it because they love the dogs and don’t want to risk them being seized and euthanized if anything ever happens again like a dog running out the door, especially now that the dogs have been deemed “vicious” in the eyes of the court.
That’s a heartbreaking decision, and I don’t take it lightly. Is it what is best for the dogs lives. Certainly no, they are in a loving home, with owners who want them, but have decided that the risk of execution is just to great. So in the interest of sparing the dogs from that they decided to find a suitable home.
What I wish would change.
I don’t pretend to have the perfect answer for the legal system. There are truly dangerous dogs out there, and public safety matters.
But I do believe we need better education and better standards around how “bite,” “attack,” and “vicious” determinations are made, especially at the animal control / welfare level where these cases often start.
At a minimum, decisions should weigh: injury evidence (or lack of it), veterinary documentation, bite pressure / puncture / bruising indicators, witness interpretation vs physical facts, behavior context and dog history, and professional evaluation when appropriate.
Words like “vicious” shouldn’t be applied casually. They carry real, permanent consequences for these animals, these pets, these family members.
If you ever end up in this type of case.
If you’re facing citations, dangerous-dog allegations, or anything that could put your dog at risk:
Get an attorney early. Have the attorney meet with your trainer ahead of time. Document everything: training logs, evaluations, vet records, photos, videos. Take containment seriously immediately: gates, locks, signage, redundancy.
Understand that court is not a training session: procedure matters, and evidence rules matter.
Labeling a dog as “vicious” is a serious thing. In this case, it felt like the prosecutor was pursuing a death sentence for what looked, to me, like the canine equivalent of disorderly conduct and trespass.
And that should concern anyone who cares about fairness, public safety, and animal welfare.
If you’re a dog owner dealing with escape behaviors, gate rushing, poor recall, or high-arousal chaos, those issues can be improved with the right structure and training plan.
If you need help building real-world reliability, threshold manners, place work, recall, and calm behavior around distractions, please reach out to a local trainer and address those issues early.
If you or someone you know is interested in adopting one or both of these Malinois, shoot me a message and I will put you in touch directly with their owners..
