This is a very different argument?

You provided a table and argued that it showed that states commonly do strict liability for animals "in many cases"

The table shows no such thing.

Now your argument is, apparently, that strict liability does exist in criminal law, and should exist in criminal law, something i have never argued is either false or bad.

I've only argued strict liability for felonies, and particularly this felony, is a bad idea.

Something I stand by.