More than two months after attacking and injuring a Larimer Humane Society animal control officer, dogs Duke and Max are still kept from their owners.

Owner Ronee Rondestvedt said Tuesday that the county has kept the dogs pending a case against her and the dogs’ other owner, Kenneth Smith. Both were charged with two counts of owning a dangerous dog after the Nov. 17 incident, and Rondestvedt said they fear they won’t see the dogs until May, or worse, ever again.

“We don’t even know if they’re alive now,” Rondestvedt said, noting that per policy, the Larimer Humane Society — the same agency that employs the attacked officer — will not allow visitations.

Larimer Humane Society Director of Development and Community Relations Kara Pappas said Thursday that Duke and Max are alive, and that the Humane Society is the contracted holder of impounded animals. She said that furthermore, since the Humane Society employs the officer, it handed the subsequent investigation over to the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, which ultimately found probable cause to impound the dogs.

“They are still in our facility just like we would house any other dogs,” Pappas said, explaining that Duke and Max each receive two meals per day plus outdoor time, treats and other attention.

Pappas said dogs belonging to Smith and Rondestvedt have been impounded three times prior to the November incident for other reasons, but not attacks on humans.

She also confirmed the identity of the bitten control officer, Paul Dulany.

Duke, a 4-year-old Boxer and American Bulldog mix; and Max, an 18-month-old Labrador mix, could be euthanized if Smith and Rondestvedt are found guilty of their charges, according to Juliet Piccone, the animal-focused attorney hired to defend the owners in this case.

Piccone, based in Denver, said that the case of Duke and Max is one of many “doggy death penalty” cases she has handled, but unlike many others, the charges already have been dismissed once.

Shortly after the attack, Larimer County Judge Peter Schoon heard the case and dismissed state-level charges against Smith and Rondestvedt alleging ownership of dangerous animals.

Piccone said Colorado statutes claim that those who work with animals — such as veterinarians, pet groomers, trainers and animal control officers — cannot prosecute against dog owners in the case of attack.

“Those people put themselves at risk for this,” Piccone said. “They are covered through workman’s compensation as part of the job.”

However, in a proceeding that Piccone said she opposes and questions, Schoon gave prosecuting attorney Erica Kasemodel 10 days after the dismissal of state charges to “come up with better charges.”

At this time, the dogs were not released, Piccone said, and prosecutors charged the owners with similar charges, but under Larimer County laws.

Larimer County District Attorney spokeswoman Jodi Lacey confirmed Wednesday that Smith’s and Rondestvedt’s cases have been split into two separate cases and jury trials have been scheduled for each.

Smith has pleaded not guilty to two counts of owning a vicious dog causing injury, a Class 2 misdemeanor; his jury trial is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. May 23 in courtroom L2 of the Larimer County Court in Loveland. Rondestvedt faces respective counts of the same charge; her trial is set for 8:15 a.m. May 6 in courtroom L1, also in Loveland.

According to those county laws, animal attacks can be defended and justified for a variety of reasons, for instance, if the attacked person was unlawfully on the property or attacking animals or humans. But unlike state ordinance, Larimer policy claims “this defense does not apply if the person attempting to capture the animal is a peace officer, firefighter or animal control officer in the performance of their duty.”

Piccone said in this case, she argues that any conflict between county and state law should be resolved in the state’s favor.

“The county is a creature of the state,” she said. “It’s a unit of the state government.”

Piccone said it’s on this basis that she filed another motion to dismiss charges, and prosecution had until Friday to file a response. The Reporter-Herald does not know if that response had been filed as of Friday. If it has been filed, then Piccone would have until the end of the month to respond.

Piccone said beside that point, Dulany had “100 percent control” of the situation. She argued that the officer approached the home knowing the dogs would be there, and knowing they had bitten a man the previous day. Rondestvedt and Smith were not home at the time of his arrival, but neither Dulany nor the Larimer Humane Society called the owners to warn of the visit. Duke and Max are both registered with the county, and the Humane Society keeps contact information for registered owners.

Pappas said Smith and Rondestvedt have both satisfied all costs needed to house the dogs at the Humane Society. Rondestvedt said the dogs were impounded at a fee around $1,400.

A GoFundMe account featuring Dulany and the attack had raised $13,698 as of Friday morning toward medical expenses.

Neither Paul Dulany nor his wife, Kristin Dulany, would comment on the situation when contacted by the Reporter-Herald.

That attack took place Nov. 17 in the 8200 block of East County Road 18, an unincorporated area east of Loveland. On Nov. 16, Duke and Max had reportedly nipped at a seismic surveyor on the 5-acre property. According to Smith, the animal control officer was on the property the following day to notify owners of the allegation.

Pappas said Dulany was there investigating a “Level 3B” bite according to the Sophia Yin’s Canine Bite Levels scale, meaning the victim the previous day suffered more than one skin-puncturing bite wound.

She said Dulany arrived at the residence, knocked on the door, received no answer and began to head back to his vehicle when Duke and Max exited the home and chased him down.

Dulany suffered a “Level 5” bite wound, which denotes “very serious” injury from multiple, deep bite wounds. That same scale alleges that dogs that bite at Level 5 have often “had practice” biting at lesser levels. The sixth and final level on Yin’s scale indicates death of the victim.

Piccone said prosecutors have been unwilling to negotiate in recent talks, and that they’re requesting euthanization of the dogs as part of any plea deal from the owners.

“No one will talk to us about release (of the) dogs on stipulations,” Piccone said. “That’s a non-starter.”

For the allegations, Piccone said prosecutors are requesting the death of the dogs, $12,000 in restitution for the animal control officer’s wife on the basis of her missing work, and a further stipulation that Rondestvedt and Smith own no dogs for one year. Piccone added that the owners could face jail time for the crime as well.

On Nov. 19, Smith told the Reporter-Herald that his dogs abide by a shock collar threshold that surrounds their family home; they would never cross that invisible barrier, but they would — as rural dogs are expected to do — protect the home inside the threshold if owners were not present.

Rondestvedt and Smith were not home midday Nov. 17, and both said they had no notification that an officer would be arriving at that time.

Hans Peter: 970-635-3630, hpeter@prairiemountainmedia.com