Legislature to Take a Bite Out of Crime?
In the wake of a serious dog attack that left 69 year-old Genevia Bushnell recovering from 23 distinct bites, the Texas Legislature is considering a change in dog aggression laws.
Current laws don't classify dogs as dangerous unless they've previously been reported for an act of aggression, allowing the dogs' owner, Janet Mott of Fredericksburg, to escape punishment even despite her indifference and inaction during the attack. (Allegedly, Janet stood idly by and even commented to the prone Bushnell, "Get up. You're not bit," despite the blood pooling underneath her.)
Even if the dogs had been noted as aggressive, Mott likely would have faced merely a Class C Misdemeanor, which carries up to a $500 fine. With serious injury or death, the penalties jump up quickly to Class A - but keep in mind that these penalties are only levied if the dog has already been in trouble at least once before.
Although the crux of this particular case hinged mainly on the idea that Mott, as the three dogs' owner, had a responsibility to render aid to Bushnell during the attack, the case has highlighted the larger problem of dog attacks in general.
Lawmakers such as Senators Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) and Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso), and Representative Dan Gattis (R-Georgetown) want to put an end to the 'first free bite' policy. The three have introduced different bills, but all would effectively either increase penalties or remove the freebie first bite.
Fatalities from dog bites are relatively rare - a few each year - but 4.7 million people in the U.S alone are reported to be bitten by dogs every year, and 800,000 of those require medical attention. The Texas Department of Health and Human Services believes that the actual number of dog bites is higher; many dog owners wouldn't report their own dogs for biting them.
Remarkably, people came to the Capitol to protest such proposed measures. They showed up to the Texas Legislature with "I'm a Dog Owner and I Vote!" signs, angrily voicing their dogs' rights to......bite people?
It's hard to imagine what sort of argument the protesters might have against these initiatives. The House and Senate haven't discussed banning certain breeds of dogs - like Pit Bulls - like cities such as Denver have done. Instead, they are simply introducing the reasonable but rare concept that people should take responsibility for their (and their dogs') actions. Or, in the case of Janet Mott, allegedly, inaction.
As Hays County District Attorney Sherri Tibbe said, she could see both sides of the issue.
"I think there's a significant problem if you try to hold someone accountable if they have an animal that's never bitten anyone before. But I always want to err on the side of protecting the community," Tibbe said.
It does seem unfair that the owner of a dog who'd previously never shown signs of aggression would be held responsible for a single mishap.
But people should operate under the assumption that a dog - any dog - has the capacity to hurt and even kill a person. Though someone might think her own dogs are far more likely to injure themselves wagging their tails at a stranger than to harm a hair on someone's person, should said dogs be provoked into an attack, or suddenly mistake someone for a giant rawhide, she has to be willing to accept a penalty for the damage they cause. It's simple enough, people: kennel your dogs when the delivery person shows up, and put them on a leash when in public. It's a sound legal defense, and it's also just common courtesy and the responsible thing to do.
