The Case of the Shot Dogs. Does the Law Allow Punishing a Dog for a Killed Roe Deer? 0 105

On Friday, October 10, three dogs wandered onto the territory of a farm and, according to the municipal police, attacked a roe deer. The dogs behaved aggressively, and the owner of the property called hunters and the municipal police – the situation was resolved by shooting all three dogs. The actions of the hunters caused outrage not only from the dog owner – an entrepreneur and owner of the "Modra olas" brand, but also within Latvian society. The portal tv3.lv sought legal commentary from lawyer Lauris Klagishs: do hunters have the right to decide to shoot stray pets?

The public learned about the dogs shot in the Brunava municipality from their owner – the owner of the "Modra olas" enterprise, Modris Konovalovs. On social media Instagram, he reported that his world had collapsed because all three of his dogs were shot – four-year-old Bora, nine-month-old puppy Bruno, and four-month-old puppy ChipiLipi. In his public address, Modris stated that he could not remain silent about what happened and began searching for a lawyer capable of defending animal rights.

"Thank you to everyone who shared on social media. This cannot be kept silent! There are laws, and they must be followed or changed! Why do dogs need chips if they can be shot without verification? Just shot! ChipiLipi is a puppy, he is four months old, did he attack a person? Are you serious? My dogs love people! Guests come to me (...)" - wrote Modris Konovalovs.

As reported by the public media portal LSM, the municipal police of Bauska County indicated that the dogs were aggressive and were tearing at the roe deer. The owner of the private house could not approach them as they were uncontrollable and posed a threat to her safety, so she contacted a hunter and called the municipal police. The police characterized the dogs as "weapons" and emphasized that they had become uncontrollable and could attack residents.

"We also tried to approach, but the dogs, literally baring their teeth, aggressively moved towards us. At some point, a decision was made to neutralize them," said the head of the municipal police of Bauska, Egils Gailis, while denying that the police made the decision to shoot. According to him, the decision was made by the hunters who were called first.

The State Police informed the portal tv3.lv that a criminal process has been initiated regarding this incident under Chapter 20 of the Criminal Law – on crimes against public safety and order. The police continue to investigate the circumstances of what happened.

It is also known that the municipal police of Bauska have initiated administrative proceedings regarding the attack on the roe deer.

Lawyer Lauris Klagishs, commenting on the situation from a legal standpoint, stated that Latvian legislation does not provide for the right to arbitrarily shoot aggressive or stray dogs.

He explained that the Animal Protection Act explicitly prohibits killing pets.

"There are exceptions when this is allowed, but the specific case is not one of them," emphasized Klagishs.

According to him, there must be a real, not presumed, basis for the danger to kill an animal. In this situation, it was only a presumption that after the attack on the roe deer, the dogs might attack a person.

"At the moment, there are no facts indicating that the dogs attacked people or pets," he noted.

Klagishs explained that in Latvia, a pet may be euthanized if it attacks a person, another animal, or property. One case in judicial practice, where the decision to shoot a dog was deemed lawful, involved a situation where a dog attacked chickens. Some of the chickens had already been killed, and some were still alive. The owner of the chickens, in order to save the remaining ones, shot the dog. The court acquitted him.

Klagishs himself worked on a case where the decision to euthanize a dog was made after it was officially recognized as dangerous by the PVS (Food and Veterinary Service). This was a case where a neighbor's large dog came onto someone else's territory and killed two dachshunds. After the second attack on another dachshund, a decision was made to euthanize.

"But in the case of Modris's dogs, the PVS did not recognize them as dangerous; they did not attack people, did not harm property, did not cause damage," emphasized the lawyer. "In this case, the dogs attacked a roe deer, a wild animal, not someone’s property. They cannot be killed for this. If the dogs had subsequently attacked a pet or a person, then their owner would be liable – in the form of a fine, but not through the shooting of the dogs."

When asked whether the Hunting Law allows hunters to shoot pets on hunting grounds, Klagishs replied that Modris's dogs were shot on private property, not on hunting grounds.

"First of all, to recognize a dog as a stray, there must be some signs – the presence of a chip, appearance. In the photo, it is clear that these are well-groomed pets," said the lawyer.

He also emphasized that the person who shot the dogs acted not as a hunter, but as a private individual.

"This did not happen in a hunting area, and this cannot be regarded as hunting," concluded Klagishs. Even if the dogs indeed tore at the roe deer, under Latvian law, a hunter does not have the right to unilaterally kill animals as punishment. "Someone was very hasty," concluded the lawyer.