TexasCHLforum.com

Hoodasnacks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:14 pm

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:43 am

striker55 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:29 am One more point, a dog doesn't have to bite someone before being declared a dangerous dog, being aggressive can.

I have two things which refute that expectation.

1. According to the Animal Control officer, only when an attacking dog actually kills its "prey" has there been any success in getting the offending animal declared as a dangerous dog. Even some cases where humans are attacked,the court will not agree to the dangerous dog designation. I took her through the attack on my leg by a doberman and she said that I would have had a near zero chance of getting that animal declared a dangerous dog.

2. My sister in Pennsylvania, through the local animal control and district attorney's office, took the owner of the pit bull that attacked her Pom to court and won dangerous dog and a judgement for the $1,200 in medical bills The owner, acting as her own attorney, filed an appeal. The assistant district attorney represented my sister. The owner called herself as a witness and lied to the court on the stand about the circumstances of the attack. My sister's vet testified and was attacked as not being a credible witness about the damage done to my sister's dog. The appellate judge enforced the payments for the vet bill at $50 a month but overturned the dangerous dog. The dog is now free to come back outside my sister's fence that it jumped. In response, my sister increased the height of her fence to 6 feet. I'm not certain that is enough.

For those who don't know, a person with a declared dangerous dog must post signs to that effect at their residence, not have their animal out in public without a muzzle carry $100,000 worth of liability insurance and, in PA, pay $500 per year to the State for having a dangerous dog. The owner of the pit bull that attacked my sister's dog was already making payments to the State for unrelated past legal judgements against her and was not capable of meeting the financial requirements for having a dangerous dog. My editorial comment is that the owner's financial situation played a large role in the case being overturned on appeal. It is likely that the owner would have had to give up the dog or euthanize it if forced to meet the dangerous dog requirement. The owner showed pictures of her dog with children and the court bought it. How the dog behaves around children is irrelevant to the dog's behavior against animals like other pets that it considers to be prey.