First Application of Lillian's Law for dog attacks (Austin, Post: live, pit bulls)

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by chuck_steak

I've seen dogs tethered in Austin. In fact, I know a lawyer who tethers his dog in the front yard.

Tethering a dog has been illegal since 2007, unless a person is holding one end of the tether.

Here's the code: Austin Ordinance (http://www.chainfreeaustin.org/draft.htm - broken link)

[Don in Austin]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Actually the article says he did try to repair the fence. Unfortunately the dogs still got out during his absence. That could happen to anyone in spite of reasonable efforts to contain them, but he is still the party responsible. The City bears some responsibility for this by making it illegal to tether a dog.

Keeping a dog tethered is cruel and not good for the mental health and socialization of the dog and frequently makes the dog aggressive. The law against the practice makes sense. If a person is not able to keep a dog humanely contained behind a fence the answer is easy -- don't have a dog. The responsibility is 100% the dog owner's.

At the very least, if the fence is not 100% safe to contain the dog no matter what, then one should not own a dog capable of inflicting major or fatal wounds. "Sorry, my pit bull got out and ate your daughter's face, -- this never happened before," doesn't cut it.

All too often when a dog maims or kills a human or an innocent animal, the blame is placed on bad luck, the victim, or it being illegal to keep the dog on a 6 foot logging chain. Scapegoating any of these is utter crap.

Don

[Don in Austin]

Originally Posted by Dr.Mom

The last statement in the article:

Attorney Ellie Ruth, who defended Welton, said that charging dog owners for the conduct of their pet is unfair.
"I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set to expose dog owners to criminal liability for basically their dogs getting out of their yard."

This COMPLETELY baffles me. As a former dog owner, I always felt that my dog was my responsibility at all times. Even when at the vet or kennel, I still bore some degree of responsibility for him because it was my job to teach him to act properly in all situations. Sorry, but this defendant should be in jail for being so thoroughly negligent.

+100!

Don

[paul6835]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

Hmmm...given the fact that all 3 cases of criminal negligence with an animal winding thru the Travis county court system right now ALL INVOLVE PIT BULLS, I wonder how long before this becomes a pit bull thread.

Here's a test for you: Pet Pitbull - Find the Pit Bull





I'd be willing to be that a majority of the "pitt bull attacks" were just one of the dogs commonly misidentified as a pitt bull

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by paul6835

Here's a test for you: Pet Pitbull - Find the Pit Bull





I'd be willing to be that a majority of the "pitt bull attacks" were just one of the dogs commonly misidentified as a pitt bull

I don't need a test. I was wondering about the thread. I have no intention of engaging with the pit bull nuts out there.

[owlman]

For someone with no intention of turning this into a pit bull thread you sure are trying pretty hard to do so

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by owlman

For someone with no intention of turning this into a pit bull thread you sure are trying pretty hard to do so

Where did I say that? I said I didn't want to engage with the pro pit bull people, one of the main reasons being is that they put silly little "tests" like the one above up. I think pointing out that all 3 cases involve pit bulls is a salient point, I never said we shouldn't talk about it.

Really wish people would stop "quoting" me with stuff I didnt say....it makes you look foolish.

[OpenD]

Hey y'all, this law applies equally to all breeds of dogs. It's about owner responsibility.

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Hey y'all, this law applies equally to all breeds of dogs. It's about owner responsibility.

I don't disagree with that. All dogs can be vicious if not trained correctly. Some dogs are capable of doing MUCH more damage than others though.

I grew up on a farm. We always had dogs. Some were small, some large. The same rule applied for all of them....if they ATTACKED or KILLED another animal or a piece of livestock, you put them down.

It was hard, and not something that was fun..but on the farm we knew that once a dog was a killer, it was a killer. I have had 3 dogs, prolly out of 30, in my life that my grandfather or step father shot and killed because they killed a goat, killed another dog, and bit a child. That was just the way it worked. This dog in the case above had a history of violence, and the home owner knowing this still acted casually with his killer dog because "hey, he's my snookums" and it drives me up the wall becuase BAD dog owners give ALL dog owners a bad name. Pet's are not people.

Regardless though, there are just too many "pit bulls mauled...." threads and news stories, and in Travis county 3 cases in the court system, for me not to go..."you know, pit bulls just seem like a bad idea..."

But I already know the argument from the other side "not MY SNOOKUMS, he wouldn't hurt a fly. There are 80 billion pit bulls in austin and you are judging them all by just one, just one! And it's the owners fault! Not the pit bulls! Here, read this chart and choose the pit bull!!"

Yeah, it is the owners fault. But it's also a fact of life that Pit Bulls are a fighting breed they were bred for violence, physically they are put together in such a way that they can do a huge amount of damage in a short amount of time, and the breed is just bad news.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

Regardless though, there are just too many... yada yada yada...

Seriously, this law applies equally to all breeds of dogs. It's about owner responsibility. That's what the thread is about.