Texas: Arlington Dog Loses Leg In Brutal Pit Bull Attack, Owner Wants Changes

Although the article doesn't say, if you watch the video you can see the gray pit bull through a gap in the fence. 

TEXAS -- An Arlington pet owner plans to rally a group at city hall to call for changes in the code that classifies what constitutes a dangerous animal.

Kim Ashley’s boxer named Marney lost her right, front leg after getting attacked by a dog down the street. It was the second attack in two years.

When Ashley called after the first attack, she said Animal Control told her that nothing can be done when one dog attacks another dog.

 

Marney after being attacked by the same pit bull 2 years ago

“I was told a dog cannot be deemed dangerous unless it attacks a person,” Ashley said.

In both cases, the neighbor’s dog escaped its yard and broke into Ashley’s. Animal Control confirmed receiving complaints about the aggressive dog roaming free, but because the dog was never found roaming by officers, it couldn’t be taken in.

 

The dog tore through the fence
to attack Marney, ripping off her leg

Ashley has pointed the finger of blame to the law for the most recent attack.

“As citizens of Arlington we should have the right to be protected,” said Ashley. “Our animals should be protected in their own yard.”

I disagree with Animal Control's assertion that nothing can be done about vicious dogs attacking and killing pets. Per the city of Arlington's website:

Dangerous Dogs
Dangerous dog determinations are governed by both Texas law and the Ordinances of the City of Arlington.

A dangerous dog is defined by the Arlington Animal Chapter of the Arlington Code of Ordinances, Section 1.01, as:

1. A dog that makes an unprovoked attack on a human which causes bodily injury and occurs in a place other than an enclosure in which the animal was kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the animal from leaving the enclosure on its own; or

2. A dog that commits unprovoked acts in a place other than an enclosure in which the animal was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the animal from leaving the enclosure on its own, and those acts cause a person reasonably to believe the animal will attack and cause bodily injury to that person. 

Clearly, this pit bull qualifies under part 2 of the ordinance. The acts (attacking and killing pets) done by this vicious pit bull most certainly "cause a person reasonably to believe the animal will attack and cause bodily injury to that person". 

This dog attacked and killed a cat in front of a neighbor. Did that neighbor believe the pit bull could and would do the same to him/her? Yes. This pit bull attacked Marney two years ago and about ripped off her ear. Did Marney's owner believe the pit bull could and would do the same to her? Yes. Now the same pit bull has gotten loose - yet again - and tore apart her fence to attack her dog, Marney - ripping off its leg. Does this same owner HAVE A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THIS PIT BULL COULD AND WOULD DO THE SAME TO HER OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF HER FAMILY? YES!

The ordinance does not say that the dog has to qualify for 1 AND 2 to be declared dangerous. Therefore, I read it to say that as long as the dog qualifies for 1 OR 2, then the owner can be cited for a dangerous dog classification.

If Arlington Animal Control is confused as to what the law says, why haven't they sought clarification long ago? The dead and injured pets of Arlington are piling up.

Tuesday morning, Animal Control stopped by to check on the aggressive dog again, but it had already escaped the yard. Officers found it inside a neighbor’s garage.

Another neighbor then approached the officers with video of the same dog killing a cat.

 

 

The attack dog was taken into custody and its owner signed ownership over to the city.

Now the city said it will euthanize the dog, which left Marney with only three legs.

(CBS Local - ‎Jan 19, 2016)