Dangerous Dogs

I got an email this past week from a viewer reacting to a story that we reported last Friday about an attack by several pit bulls on a horse and a pair of young calves. Sadly, the injuries were so bad that one of the calves died.

A viewer wrote to ask why the City of Abilene will not pass a law to ban pit bulls and all dangerous dogs? He wrote, "I am so tired of hearing of people and other dogs being attacked and killed while being on their own property. It's as if pit bulls have more rights than people. I recently took my two small children to a city park and was forced to leave because some other people arrived to have a cook-out with two very large pit bulls. I was furious that my children could not play at a park that I faithfully pay taxes for." The viewer went on to complain that the City of Abilene has been slow to respond to complaints about pit bulls and that owners for the most part have been irresponsible. It concluded with this statement: "These dogs should be outlawed and this should be a no brainer!"

Let me begin by saying the City of Abilene has addressed the issue of dangerous dogs with a local ordinance. Our city is not alone. In 2007, the State of Texas enacted Lillian's Law, named for Lillian Stiles, a 76-year old woman that was attacked and killed on November 26, 2005, by a pack of six pit bull-Rottweiler mixed-breed dogs. Lillian's husband, Jack, was inside their home watching a football game and was unaware of the attack until a passerby alerted him. A few hundred yards down the road, authorities found the empty dog pen behind a three-foot fence. The owner of the dogs, Jose Hernandez, was found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. The sponsor of Lillian's Law, El Paso Senator Eliot Shapleigh, wrote: "In hundreds of horrific cases across Texas, the very young and old have been attacked, even killed by packs of pitbulls. With this bill, we send a strong message that we will protect people from dangerous dogs."
Lillian's Law charges a dog owner with a third-degree felony if the dog causes serious bodily injury to a victim in an unprovoked attack. A third-degree felony is punishable by two to 10 years in prison and a possible $10,000 fine. The crime would be a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison, if a victim dies a result of an unprovoked attack. It got its first real test last year when a seven-year old Breckenridge boy was fatally mauled by a pair of dogs. The owners of the dog were found guilty and are currently appealing the verdict.

The majority of such cases involve domestic dogs.

I know dog owners who treat their pets like members of their family, traveling with them and making them part of every family outing they go on. Should the city pass an ordinance outlawing pit bulls? People get bitten by dogs and cats all the time, but I see no movement to ban those pets from our city. While I completely understand and for the most part share the viewer's concerns for the safety of his children, I think that the City and State have addressed the problem in a responsible way. It becomes incumbent on the owner of the pet to control his pet. If he is unable to do so, legal punishments are clearly in place to deal with the problem. Rather than banning any breed of dog in our city, perhaps we should be more considerate of others and simply leave the dog at home, especially if there is reason to believe there could be a problem.

Those are my thoughts: what are yours?

Downing