The Philadelphia agency responsible for reporting dangerous dog cases to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement remains unclear, but until the mystery is resolved state officials say the bureau lacks consistent and complete reports.
David Wilson, the city’s first deputy managing director, Thursday said his office has contacted animal control, court and police officials to determine where a breakdown might be occurring.
“That’s where we are right now,” Wilson said. “I’m doing some fact-finding and information gathering to find out where things are so that we can remedy the reporting issue.”
On Monday, PhillyVoice reported that the state’s dangerous dog registry did not include any dogs from Philadelphia, despite listing 157 from Allegheny County and 37 from the four suburban Philadelphia counties. On Wednesday a pit bull attacked its adopted family in Northeast Philadelphia, injuring three.
The registry is meant to let the public know if an unprovoked dog that has been declared dangerous by an judge after attacking, injuring or killing a human or domestic animal lives in the neighborhood.
City and animal control officials say Philadelphia monitors two dangerous dogs.
The Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement found 27 cases from Philadelphia dating between 1997 and 2014 following an inquiry from PhillyVoice, Department of Agriculture spokesman Logan Hall said.
"Several of the cases predate the current administration and are rather old," Hall wrote in an email Friday. "We are continuing to investigate the cases on file, due to a lack of receipt from Philadelphia. Moving forward we are improving the strength of communication with Philadelphia."
Wilson said last week that Philadelphia has had nine dangerous dog cases since 2012. Only two remain active.
Those two cases were among the 27 Philadelphia cases found by the state, confirmed Susan Cosby-Jennings, executive director of Animal Care and Control Team of Philadelphia. She declined to cite them specifically, saying she was unsure whether she had authority as a nonprofit contractor.
Many of the 27 cases lacked significant information, including the dogs’ license numbers or microchip information, Hall said.
“This piece of information is critical as the dog could have changed owners or the owner could have changed addresses without notifying the Philadelphia Police and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement,” Hall wrote in an email.
The Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement found 27 cases from Philadelphia dating between 1997 and 2014 following an inquiry from PhillyVoice. The Department of Agriculture provided a list that shows many of the case information is incomplete.
Seven cases lacked specific addresses for the dog owners. Several others lacked information regarding the breed, color and name of the dog. Two others strangely listed addresses in White Haven, a borough in Luzerne County.
Hall said the incident that led to each of the 27 cases took place in Philadelphia.
When asked whether a state official is responsible for following up on incomplete reports, Hall wrote, “It is the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement’s expectation that Philadelphia provides the Bureau with complete and accurate information."
Pennsylvania Dog Law directs judges to report dangerous dog determinations to the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement and the city police department or animal control agency.
Another provision also requires copies of all dangerous dog determinations, certificates and status reports to be sent to the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement. But it does not clearly indicate the responsible agency.
Hall said that decision is left to the city.
This is one of nearly five full pages included in the state's dangerous dogs registry that lists cases from Allegheny County. Philadelphia does not have any dangerous dogs on the list, but local officials say the city monitors two dangerous dogs. (Source: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture)
That’s where the confusion exists, despite various attempts by PhillyVoice to gain clarity. Is animal control responsible? The court system? The police?
The Philadelphia Municipal Courts directed an inquiry to the District Attorney’s Office. DA spokesman Cameron Kline said he was uncertain which agency is responsible. Philadelphia Police did not directly respond to an inquiry seeking the department's role in reporting data to the state, but noted that officers respond to dangerous dog cases throughout the year.
"When our officers encounter a dog that is vicious, every attempt is made to safely secure that animal while notifying animal control," Public Information Officer Christine O'Brien wrote in an email. "The goal is to secure that animal without bringing harm to citizens, police or the animal itself."
ACCT, as a contracted agency, monitors dangerous dogs after the court declares a dog dangerous, Cosby-Jennings said.
“The current active cases we manage are on your list so there must be communication from a department, which could be the court itself,” Cosby-Jennings said. “I would think the state could tell you who they receive the information from since they do receive it.”
That brings the search for clarity to a full circle.