Commission declares dog "Tri State" dangerous after cyclist bitten on Falls Road

A county Animal Control and Education Commission declared a dog named Tri State a dangerous animal after hearing testimony on a March 9, 2025, incident in which a teenage cyclist, Luke Rausch, was bitten on Falls Road near 2850 Falls Road in Evansville.

Commissioners voted to find probable cause, heard testimony from the complainant, owner and witnesses, and then voted to declare Tri State dangerous while finding the injury did not rise to the code definition of "serious bodily injury." The commission ordered a set of stipulations including registration, home confinement or attended leash use outdoors, placement of warning signs by the road, spay/neuter and permanent identification, and potential fines for noncompliance.

The commission heard from Kelly Rausch, the complainant and mother of the injured teenager, who said the attack happened at about 3:11 a.m. on March 9, 2025. "If Luke had been walking and didn't have the bike to protect himself, this could have been much worse," she told the commission and presented photographs of the wounds and clothing showing punctures through pants and a visible leg wound. Rausch said Luke was taken to urgent care and was given antibiotics.

Gary Ludwig, identified at the hearing as the dog's owner, told the commission he had not seen the incident and questioned whether Tri State was the biting animal. "I can't believe all that. I've never had no instance like this before," Ludwig said, and explained Tri State typically stays on property he shares with an older relative and helps watch the area.

Animal control testimony said officers followed a dog from the 2850 Falls Road area to Ludwig's property at 2908 (transcript: Fulks/Fultz) Road, and, because the animal was circling the animal-control vehicle, they placed Tri State on a 10-day home quarantine. "We put the dog on quarantine. We decide to do a home quarantine," an animal control officer said, and later reported the dog was loose on the property when officers returned to release it, contrary to the quarantine instructions.

Commission discussion focused on whether Tri State's actions presented a substantial risk of bodily harm to people using the public road. Commissioners noted prior, informal accounts that Tri State had chased bicycles and that animals do not respect property lines. One commissioner said the dog "could have done it more and more," and that given the evidence there was a meaningful risk of recurrence.

The commission voted first to declare Tri State a dangerous animal. The board then voted that the injury in this incident did not meet the code's definition of "serious bodily injury," which the commission read from the county code. Finally the commission imposed the following restrictions under the county code's dangerous-animal provisions: require that the animal be confined to a locked fence when unattended outdoors or when outdoors and unattended; require that the dog be attended and on a leash no longer than six feet when outdoors and not within a secure fence; require signage placed near the road (commissioners specified approximately 4–5 feet from the road, facing both directions); require spaying/neutering (unless medically contraindicated); require permanent identification by microchip or tattoo; require registration and prompt notice to animal control of ownership or health changes and of any further attacks; and reserve the right to fine the owner up to $2,500 for failure to comply and to reimpose or increase restrictions if another incident occurs.

Officer testimony included that a video showed the dog circling the commission vehicle and barking as officers arrived, and that the responding officer had taken a bite report from the complainant by phone. Animal-control staff told the commission they found no prior reports in their system for Tri State.

The commission told the owner he would receive a written copy of the required restrictions and advised both parties that the order may be appealed to the circuit court within the time allowed by statute. The commission's order also noted that humane destruction is reserved only for cases involving further incidents that result in serious bodily injury, and that a veterinarian examination at the owner's expense may be ordered to rule out treatable medical causes of aggression.

The hearing record includes photographic evidence presented by the complainant and a video taken by animal-control staff showing the dog circling the vehicle; those items were retained by animal control as evidence per the hearing rules.

The commission closed the hearing after issuing orders and adjourned.