Then animals are no longer private property, they are community property, and thus every pet owner is now immune to any lawsuits involving dog bites.. Legally, it is property. It is private property. Animal or not, this does not change.
And from what I can tell, with the scant information provided, is that the only dumb action by the owner is taking the dog on such a hike in the first place. Everything else seems very much like the actions of a concerned pet owner, including the desire to get his pet back.
Now, if there's any evidence of direct intentional abuse, that's another matter. But until such evidence is provided, I gotta say: The guy's gotta pay for his dog's rescue. He also should get his dog back.
>>Legally, it is property. It is private property. Animal or not, this does not change.<<
The term you are searching for is “chattel.” And, thank God, courts are now applying different standards in evaluating pet cases. For example, my departed kitty was probably “worth” a buck or less.
But if someone harmed her, they would — in most jurisdictions — be on the hook for all the vet and care costs, even if that ran into the thousands.
It might be a bit less of an issue for animals raised as food. But I have to admit I don’t know how the laws apply to farm chattel.
There are animal welfare laws for good reason.
I’d say both taking her up there and walking her across sharp rocks until she could walk no more were abusive acts, and not making any effort to go and recover her thereafter—except for seeing if the government would do it for him—was pretty offensive too.
The knucklehead doesn’t deserve to have her back and she’d be better off without the knucklehead. But as someone pointed out earlier, the chances are probably pretty good that he will get her back.