In Grand Rapids, Michigan, a veterinarian is under scrutiny for charges related to the rescue and retention of a dog belonging to a homeless man. Amanda Hergenreder, the veterinarian in question, encountered a dog in distress, tied to a truck, and decided to transport the animal to her clinic for urgent medical attention. Over a two-hour drive, she alongside her team treated the dog for serious health issues including a urinary tract infection and a decayed tooth, renaming the animal Biggby. Nearly four months later, Hergenreder claims the 16-year-old pit bull mix is showing major signs of recovery and well-being.
However, the Kent County prosecutor contends that the dog, known by Chris Hamilton as Vinny, rightfully belongs to him. Hamilton, who currently resides without a stable home in the Grand Rapids vicinity, has long cared for the dog and asserts his bond with the animal as deeply meaningful. “I just want my dog back,” Hamilton said in an interview. “I had my dog 15 years. Never neglected him and, you know, we loved each other. I mean, I felt like I lost part of my body after that. Never felt the same after losing him.”
Prosecutor Chris Becker has labeled the incident as straightforward larceny, a minor legal infraction that could result in up to 93 days of imprisonment. A trial with jury selection is set for March 6. “You don’t have a right to just take something because you feel something’s wrong. … People have a very big attachment to their animals,” Becker said, stressing the universal importance of pets in their owners’ lives regardless of economic status.
Hergenreder recounts the circumstance from November, explaining she was in Grand Rapids for a professional gathering when she noticed the animal tied near a coffee shop. She recalls the dog’s lack of energy vividly, claiming it was so lethargic that it had to be carried to her vehicle. Hergenreder insists she made contact with local law enforcement and an animal shelter, alongside interacting with a nearby shop employee. “No energy, very lethargic,” she expressed. “We carried him to our vehicle. It was just very sad.”
In response to the allegations, Hamilton admitted he had tethered the dog to the truck while he went to a nearby service station. Upon returning—approximately 45 minutes later—coffee shop staff informed him that a woman had taken his dog, cutting the rope. Hergenreder’s legal representative, Miles Greengard, stands firmly by her actions. He fears the dog would not receive adequate care if returned to Hamilton. “Mr. Hamilton didn’t even take such basic steps as licensing the dog,” Greengard said, expressing skepticism about returning Biggby to Hamilton given the dog’s medical needs. “Now he expects a benevolent doctor to give Biggby the medical treatment he’s been denied and needs moving forward, and then give the dog back?”
“This situation is unfortunate from all angles,” Greengard added. “But I’m glad Biggby is living his best life.” This legal and ethical quandary raises numerous questions about animal ownership rights and the responsibilities entailed, especially when intersected with issues of homelessness and veterinary care. As the case proceeds through the judicial system, the ultimate fate of Biggby—whether he remains with Hergenreder or is returned to Hamilton—hangs in balance.
