Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 174 — DOGS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 174.001 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
174.001174.001 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise:
174.001(1)(1) “Collar” means a band, strip or chain placed around the neck of a dog.
174.001(2)(2) “Department” means the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection.
174.001(2g)(2g) “Domestic animal” includes livestock, dogs and cats.
174.001(2j)(2j) “Intergovernmental commission” means an intergovernmental commission formed by contract under s. 66.0301 (2) by all of the municipalities in a county with a population of 750,000 or more for the purpose of providing animal control services.
174.001(3)(3) “Livestock” means any horse, bovine, sheep, goat, pig, llama, alpaca, domestic rabbit, farm-raised deer, as defined in s. 95.001 (1) (ag), or domestic fowl, including any farm-raised game bird, as defined in s. 169.01 (12m).
174.001(4)(4) “Officer” has the meaning designated under s. 95.21 (1) (b).
174.001(5)(5) “Owner” includes any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog.
174.001 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 289 ss. 8m, 17; 1983 a. 451; 1995 a. 79, 316; 1997 a. 35; 2001 a. 16, 56; 2003 a. 133; 2017 a. 207 s. 5.
174.001 AnnotationThe casual presence of a dog on someone’s property does not make that person a “keeper.” “Harboring” a dog means to afford it lodging, to shelter it, or give it refuge; it does not include the transient presence in one’s home of another’s dog. Pattermann v. Pattermann, 173 Wis. 2d 143, 496 N.W.2d 613 (Ct. App. 1992).
174.001 AnnotationThere is a distinction between “keeping” and “harboring.” Keeping generally requires exercising some measure of care, custody, or control over the dog, while harboring is often defined as sheltering or giving refuge to a dog. Thus, harboring lacks the proprietary aspect of keeping. However, the concepts of “harbor” and “keep” are similar, and the liability of one who harbors a dog and one who keeps a dog is the same. Pawlowski v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 2009 WI 105, 322 Wis. 2d 21, 777 N.W.2d 67, 07-2651.
174.001 AnnotationThe relevant consideration in deciding a question of “harboring” is whether the owner of the home knowingly afforded lodging and shelter to the dog. That an owner resided in a separate home from the dog and was not in a convenient position to and in fact did not exercise custody or control over or care for the dog, would be most relevant if the issue was whether the owner was a “keeper” of the dog, but not a harborer. Augsburger v. Homestead Mutual Insurance Company, 2013 WI App 106, 350 Wis. 2d 486, 838 N.W.2d 88, 12-0641.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Julie A. Augsburger v. Homestead Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 WI 133 (Wis. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Julie A. Augsburger v. Homestead Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 WI 133 (Wis. 2014). · cites it 35× “" Wis. Stat. § 174.001 (5). It is undisputed that Kontos did not legally own the dogs and did not "keep" them.”
Smaxwell v. Bayard, 2004 WI 101 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 12× “Wis. Stat. §§ 174.001 (5) & 174.02(1). [16] The statute states that the penalties imposed therein "are in addition to any other liability imposed on the owner of a dog.”
Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins., 549 N.W.2d 723 (Wis. 1996). · cites it 25× “At this juncture, the critical questions are: (1) whether an employee of a boarding kennel whose duties include caring for dogs is a "keeper" and therefore "owner" under Wis. Stat. § 174.001 (5) and, if so, (2) may such a keeper who is injured while he or she is exercising…”
Malone Ex Rel. Bangert v. Fons, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 20× “The Malones contend the trial court erred because: Fons's conduct fell within the parameters of a claim for common law negligence; Fons was a "harborer" of his tenant's dog, as that term is defined in § 174.001, STATS., and was subject to the double damages provision found in §…”
Pawlowski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 4× “§ 174.001(5) defines the word "owner" as including "any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog.”
Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins., 530 N.W.2d 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Under § 174.001(5), Stats., " '[o]wner' includes any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog.”
Erdmann v. Progressive N. Ins., 2011 WI App 33 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “02 (1); see also Wis. Stat. § 174.001 (5) (defining "owner" under § 174.”
Pattermann v. Pattermann, 496 N.W.2d 613 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “" Section 174.001(5), Stats. Erin argues that Sallie is strictly liable under sec.”
Pawlowski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “§ 174.001); Gonzales v. Wilkinson, 68 Wis.”
Fire Ins. Exch. v. Cincinnati Ins., 2000 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Specifically, it provides, "the owner of a dog is liable for the full amount of damages caused by the dog injuring or causing injury to a person, domestic animal or property.”
Fifer v. Dix, 2000 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Noting that Wis. Stat. § 174.001 (5) defines "owner" as one who "keeps" a dog, the court determined that the employee was thus an "owner" of the dog at the time the injury occurred.”
Malik v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 174.001(5). In Armstrong , the court held that a keeper, and therefore an owner under the statute, need not be the legal owner of the dog, but must exercise some measure of custody, care, or control over the dog.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 174.001(2g) — 2 cases
Campenni v. Walrath, 493 N.W.2d 266 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Campenni v. Walrath, 509 N.W.2d 725 (Wis. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 174.001(3) — 2 cases
Campenni v. Walrath, 493 N.W.2d 266 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Campenni v. Walrath, 509 N.W.2d 725 (Wis. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 174.001(5) — 10 cases
Malone Ex Rel. Bangert v. Fons, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The Malones contend the trial court erred because: Fons's conduct fell within the parameters of a claim for common law negligence; Fons was a "harborer" of his tenant's dog, as that term is defined in § 174.001, STATS., and was subject to the double damages provision found in §…”
Pawlowski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105 (Wis. 2009). “§ 174.001(5) defines the word "owner" as including "any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog.”
Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins., 549 N.W.2d 723 (Wis. 1996). “At this juncture, the critical questions are: (1) whether an employee of a boarding kennel whose duties include caring for dogs is a "keeper" and therefore "owner" under Wis. Stat. § 174.001 (5) and, if so, (2) may such a keeper who is injured while he or she is exercising…”
Julie A. Augsburger v. Homestead Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 WI 133 (Wis. 2014). “" Wis. Stat. § 174.001 (5). It is undisputed that Kontos did not legally own the dogs and did not "keep" them.”
Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins., 530 N.W.2d 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Under § 174.001(5), Stats., " '[o]wner' includes any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.