Editorial: Vicious dog laws need more teeth

Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2004 | 8:38 a.m.

On the Sunday after Christmas, in a neighborhood near Buffalo Drive and Flamingo Road, a couple, their daughter and the family cocker spaniel went out for a stroll. What should have been a pleasant outing turned horrible when Max, the cocker spaniel, was attacked by a vicious dog that had escaped its back yard. The three people with Max fought to save him but say the attacking dog broke off the fight only after Max, who survived, appeared dead. The next victims, an elderly woman and her toy poodle, were right around the corner. The escaped dog attacked both of them, killing the poodle and leaving the woman bitten and bloodied. Naturally, the victims of the attack believe that the dog is a danger to the neighborhood and should be euthanized. They felt even stronger about putting the dog to sleep when they learned that he had killed another dog just two mont hs ago.

State law and Clark County Animal Control rules, however, allow such a dog to be returned to its owner while awaiting results of a rabies test. If the dog does not have rabies, under the rules it could be freed to its owner unless it had seriously injured a person or had attacked other dogs numerous times. The woman whose poodle was killed suffered bites on the hands, according to a hospital report. The owner of the aggressive dog in this case, who voluntarily turned his dog over to Animal Control, says he will euthanize the animal after the test results are returned. But the law itself does not demand such a sanction. The owner of a dog involved in such an incident could face a misdemeanor charge of negligence for allowing the dog to escape. Contrary to logic, however, the dog could be returned to its back yard, there to possibly escape and kill again.

In our view, there should be a very strong law governing dogs that engage in the type of unprovoked attack that occurred in this Las Vegas neighborhood on Dec. 28. Even on the first offense, such a dog should be seized and held until after a hearing to determine whether it should be destroyed. This case-by-case procedure would protect against killing dogs that may, for some reason, have acted entirely out of character. But it would also protect against dogs whose aggressive natures represent a proven physical danger to residents and other pets.