Travis County Commissioners Court
January 4, 2005
Item 20
Number 20 is to consider and take appropriate action on request to adopt an ordinance requiring owners to restrain certain pets in unincorporated areas of Travis County. It may help us to know what we have in place now, what enforcement problems or gaps the current ordinance causes for us and then know what we can do differently, better, etcetera. And I take it that we do have some residents here on this item, right? Okay. Why don't we try to figure out exactly where we are right now. Maybe that would give us good context.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. Sherry fleming, executive manager for Travis County health and human services. As you know, we contract with the city of Austin to provide animal control services for Travis County, so I have sitting with me from the city of Austin dorinda pull yam, who is the assistant director for health and human services and over the animal control area. So I知 going to let her be the expert this morning in our animal control program.
>> thank you, sherry. And I can start with just a brief overview, like you suggested. I think we can summarize what we have in place now as being reactive. The regulations that we currently have are reacting to an event having occurred. Those would be primarily a bite case has occurred or an animal has been declared dangerous. So those are really the powers or the authorities that the current regulations give us to address domestic pet issues that are occurring in the county.
>> in determining whether -- how do you determine whether an animal is dangerous?
>> what we're doing now, the county regulations have some processes to go through to declare an animal dangerous or vicious, but what we're doing instead is using the state law, chapter 822, which is a little bit more straightforward and is not so stringent. The county regulations to declare a dog vicious requires some pretty significant things to have happened. Several bites have to occur or a serious attack. Where the state regulations do allow us to pursue declaring a dog dangerous for menacing behavior, aggressive behavior when the bite may not have occurred yet. So that gives us a little bit of wiggle room to work on cases where there hasn't been such severe injuries. However, having said that, there still has to have been some act of aggression has to have occurred under the state law for us to use that process to declare them dangerous. Once they are declared dangerous then we have some administrative things that we can do requiring the pet to be registered. They have to be confined in certain ways to make sure that they can't get out, some things like that. If an animal is declared dangerous dangerous then we have a right to destroy it, and we do not. In the county we have to go through a process to be able to do that and have a judge give us the authority to do that.
>> a quick question. Who was it that decided that there would be different county regs from you say looser state regs, I say it is much more -- it seems to be much more relevant in terms of the kinds of issues that comes up in terms of menacing. You don't want to wait until someone has actually been bit. Who actually said those were the regs versus state regs and when was the last time that was reviewed and perhaps the state model of menacing was a better model?
>> I don't know when these regulations were written. Both the city and the county have had some kind of regulations for an eternity, for as long as we've been living in communities there's been some sort of regulation. So I couldn't tell you when these were last.
>> '84 for the county it looks like, 1984.
>> a long time, judge.
>> and we have the state law out there which is not so administratively burdensome and does not require such stringent -- bad things to have happened. We're using that law because it gives us a little more leverage work on issues before something really bad happens.
>> I知 just wondering why we haven't --
>> even the state law is still react active. It's still reacting to some form of aggression has to have occurred before we can do something with it. Under the state law, we have to take those cases before a judge, so we have to have something behind us behalf we can go sit in front of a judge and say, declare this animal dangerous.
>> so an act of aggression is what, what kind of conduct by the animal?
>> well, I think that's where you get into some issues with that is that what I may see as aggression is maybe the dog growlz at me. Someone else may not say that's aggression, they may say the dog is just giving you a warning. So when we're utilizing the state law to take care of some of these situations, we're having to look for some pretty menacing behaviors beyond the dog sitting on its own property growling at you. It's got to be pretty serious kinds of overt aggression occurring before we're going to be able to process it. To give you some context in Travis County right now you have 12 dogs registered as dangerous dogs. So it's not something that we can do very often or it's not a tool that you can just use on an everyday basis. We've only got 12 animals sitting out there registered as dangerous right now.
>> a couple of questions. Based on the e-mails that i've seen over the last couple of weeks, the typical scenario is this, that I come home and there are two or three dogs in my yard, and may even be between where I park my car and my front door. And the dogs won't leave. So I tried to shoo them away. And when the shooing doesn't work, then I really try to drive them away. And some of these dogs apparently don't like that happening to them, and growl and appear to be willing to bite me if I keep trying to drive them off my property.
>> yes, sir.
>> so in that situation, what is our enforcement response?
>> well, in that situation we don't have any enforcement response because there's provocation, and the state law that we have been using to process dangerous dog cases doesn't allow for provocation. And that's common in any dangerous dog kind of law that you see at all jurisdictional levels is that the aggression has to have occurred without any provocation. So in the case where we're trying to make the dog leave our property so we can safely go indoors and we're shooing it or driving it or whatever we're doing, that can be considered provocation. Even though the dog's on your property, you're still provoking it, so we would not be able to use those laws to do anything with that situation.
>> I learned that yesterday. That really was interesting to me because I never had thought of it that way. Now, what's the difference between the Travis County ordinance and state law and the city of Austin's leash law provisions relative to this type leash law provisions say that you have to keep your dog contained on your property or if you have the dog off your property you need to have your dog under control on a leash connected between you and the dog. We call it a leash law, but I like to think about it in terms of containment. We each have a responsibility if we have a pet to keep that pet contained so that they are safe to be in our community, they're not going to harm other people, they're not going to harm other pets and not get themselves harmed by running around and getting run over and that sort of thing. So that's what a canement law does is it -- containment law does is it places that responsibility on the pet owner. Then that gives your officers in the field a tool to work with to try to get folks into compliance that may not be voluntarily complying. It doesn't mean they'll run out and pick up every dog that we see moving. It means we have a tool to work with when people are not behaving responsibly with their pets. The people that are behaving responsibly with their animals, we leave them alone. We don't have any reason to talk to them. But the people who are not it gives them something to work with. In the scenario you're describing, the fact that these animals were off of their own property, if you do have a canement law, we would then have the authority to impound those animals and you would be safely able to get inside your house. We would also have the ability to write a citation if we identified an owner so that the owners would have a little bit of incentive to behave differently with their animals and get their animals under control. Another thing that I suggest that is worth looking at in these cases as well, and I have this in our city program, is we have a responsible pet owners class that we use so that when we have these situations occur and we do write a citation, the pet owner has an opportunity to come in and learn about responsible pet ownership and have that citation waived after the completion of the course, and it's a little half-day course similar to the concept of defensive driving. So that's the missing component now is if the animal is loose and we're not able to handle it under our dangerous dog laws, then we really don't have another tool to fall back on that will give us some leverage to work with these cases.
>> in our Travis County parks policies or rules, we have a provision that says that dogs are permitted to be off a leash at pace bend park and weberville park, provided they are kept under the owner's direct control at all times. And I interpret that to mean if your dog is off -- your dog may be off a leash at these two parks, but you need to be close enough to control the dog's behavior.
>> yes, sir.
>> so if another dog shows up or another person, the owner is there and able to exercise the dog's -- the dog's behavior, control the dog's behavior. And I assume this has been all right since we've had it in place since '93 in our park rules. And I think we put it in place because we thought that a park may be a good place for dogs to have a little bit more freedom than they would if they were in like a neighborhood.
>> yes, sir. That's the idea, the exact idea behind having leash requirements for dogs. We have two in the Travis County system and I think we have 11 or 12 in the city of Austin park system that provide leash opportunities for interaction with other dogs and to play, but we're putting them in places where it's going to be safer and it's appropriate for them to be off leash and they're not going on to other individual's property. Aside from the safety issues, I also hear complaints regarding property damage and the dog deaf indicate deaf indicating in yards or tearing up property and that sort of thing. So we need a place in the community for dogs to have their play time and that also deals with the property issues so that they're playing in a place that we've designated that they're supposed to be.
>> okay. And my final question on this, a couple of residents have contacted me and basically expressed an opinion that when they moved to the country, it was so their animals could exercise a bit more freedom than they could exercise in the city. , which I guess makes sense on one end. On the other end, though, it does seem to me that it's good neighborly for you to control your dog even if -- even while allowing the animal to -- a great deal more freedom. What sort of problem would it put to you if we have that sort of control standards?
>> we will never have the resources to just drive around and look for dogs that are not on a leash or not behind a fence so we can go pick them up. Those days are long gone when we had the kind of animal control resources. So we'll be focused on problem solving approach and we'll be working with the owners and the animals that are causing a problem. So if you have a dog on your ranch and it stays on your ranch and it doesn't go off your ranch and bother somebody, then we're never going to see that individual, we're never going to be out there to talk to them. But if you have an animal and no matter how much room you've given it to be on and it's leaving that property and intruding on others and causing a hazard or dangers for others, then that is an animal that we need to be dealing with. If you write some language into the ordinance -- we'll have to look at that carefully because when you say under your control, lots of folks have different opinions about what is that going to mean, and we want to be careful about causing our ferz officers enforcement issues in the field. Don't want to put them in a bad position. But we do not want to out there bothering people who are being responsible with their pets and keeping them on their property. We do need to deal with the people that are not doing that.
>> do we think that there's pretty much consensus or unanimous agreement that a pet owner has a responsibility to keep his pet off the neighbor's property, especially if the neighbor objects to the animals being there?
>> yes, sir, I believe so. I believe that we each have to be responsible for our pets. I think when you live in a country, you reduce the opportunity for conflict, so that does give your pet maybe more freedom because there's less opportunity for conflict with another animal or with another person or getting on somebody's property. But we still have that responsibility, whether we have laws or not, we have to be responsible for our pets and what they're doing and where they're going and what kind of things that they're getting into.
>> okay. So the 12 animals that have been designated dangerous, that means what? Do the owners have a greater responsibility to do certain things?
>> yes, sir. They're primarily administrative, but they do have to have them contain understand a way that we inspect and make sure we're comfortable with they're containment option. They have to pay a higher registration fee every year so that we know where the animal is, some things of that sort. But they are not removed from the county, they're still out there.
>> any other questions of ms. Fleming?
>> I didn't understand one thing. State law basically states that acts of aggression is only to humans only. So if you're walking your chihuahua and a dog comes out and malls your dog -- mauls your dog, in the state that's not an aggressive -- that's not an animal that we need to be concerned with, state law?
>> once you felt threatened -- the state law says if you felt like your life was threatened by that act, then that would give us some room to deal with that. And probably you would. If your pet -- if you were with your pet and it got attacked you probably would feel threatened by that.
>> since you're probably going to be in the medal of trying to get your pet and then you're mauled along with trying to get your dog out.
>> and that's the scenario that's most likely to happen. That's why we're very concerned about aggression to other animals as well because people do get involved. And we don't want other people's pets getting killed. I have to meet with those folks when something like that happens and it's a really horrible thing. So people should be able to be safe and safe with their pets and not have their pets come to harm either. Now, we can under the county regulations pursue dangerous dog actions if they are harming other animals or livestock. So we have some room there to do things if we have evidence that a dog is attacking and killing other animals.
>> what's the situation if you have a fenced backyard? I grew up with neighbors that had a chow. They owned over baseball in the lot, in the neighborhood, because when your baseball went into black can i's black yard, you didn't go get your baseball. Now, can you gone over that fence and been bitten or been mauled, what today would be the repercussions to the homeowner if the dog were fenced?
>> well, the regulations -- the dangerous dog regulation in the city, county or state would not apply because the dog was on its own property and confined properly. So we wouldn't have anything that we would be processing under those ordinances or laws. Now, whatever liability issues might exist and things that could happen civilly would be up to those parties, but the two -- the two big things in the dangerous dog laws where the dog gets a break. If it's on its property and properly confined, and you go on it, then we can't hold that against the dog and the provocation issue. The dog's been provoked and we can't hold it against them.
>> john, is that -- civilly what --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> is that -- so, in other words --
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> would the dog owner be responsible? Could that person be sued if somebody went into their backyard and was attacked?
>> I知 not sure. We've researched that issue and it's not something that our office has been empowered to look at.
>> kind of like going into somebody's backyard and they have a swimming pool, and you have somebody that falls in, that --
>> those are issues between the two private parties.
>> help me out. The e-mails that we have gotten almost all use words like aggressive, threatening, menacing, whatever. It's not simply there are logs loose. It is all problematic in terms of what constitutes dangerous. Talking about dogs that dig out of a fenced area and men as a neighborhood, unknown dogs, these packs that we don't know who they belong to, feral dogs and cats. And I heard from a number of bicyclists who on their weekend rides, they are on the public roadway, they are not on anybody else's property, and all of a sudden dogs, menacing dogs come out of nowhere or or a particular person's property and start chiesing the bicyclists and they have not done anything to provoke them other than be on a public roadway. Help me understand the kind of one size fits all because all parts of Travis County are not the same. We have very open areas. There are suburban areas, and what we would call extraordinarily rural areas. How is it that we can craft something that works for all areas? Because the last time we tried out a leash law in certain parts and we took it to rural and suburban and urban areas, people overwhelmingly said that's not why we live here. We moved out here to avoid city-like ordinances, but they agreed to a person about dangerous, aggressive, menacing, threatening, all of those kinds of words, that type of thing was something that clearly concerned them and we wanted to have help there.
>> well, a couple of comments that I would make about those issues is -- I think we have to ask ourselves the question do we want to be proactive or reactive. If you're going to wait until aggression and menacing and that kind of thing is happening, then you will be reactive. And if you're going to be proactive, you're going to try to have a more controlled situation so you have less numbers of loose dogs. It doesn't mean loose dogs go away. We will never make them go away because people will continue to have issues with keeping animals control and the animals will continue to escape. But like one of the situations that we're sernd about in -- concerned about in the county is the packing situation. When you let your dog go and it's out for its daily outing and you don't know where it went. Did it go out with a pack. You may have a nice dog in your living room, but when it joined up with a pack that may not be so nice and may get up to some not so nice things. So that I think is where we start getting into the difficulties is when you just let them go out the door and they're off for the day, you don't really know what's happening with your animal. And therefore your responsibilities are not being upheld. Your responsibility to the community are not being upheld. So if we're being proactive and we have less loose animals, we will have less opportunities for the packing to happen, we will have less opportunity for bad things to happen before we can engage in trying to solve the problem. The other thing I think that can happen that can be a very positive thing is that you do get a lot of animals being dumped in areas where there are not leash laws because people don't want to see the animal get killed if they take it to a shelter or they think it will find its way. And I think that you -- that we need to address that issue. And with some kind of place that says we can pick those animals up, there are animals contributing to the packing situation. I think that we can create something that will work for everybody. I certainly believe that we can handle it on the enforcement side because we have to do that everyday. Even in the city where we do have a leash law already in place, we're constantly having to deal with this situation and what is happening with this situation. And we use the problem solving approach. So first of all, if there's not a problem, we're not there, we're invisible to them. Those neighborhoods that don't have a problem, they won't see us. They won't know we have animal control trucks. But neighborhoods where there is a problem, we want to go to that neighborhood and figure out how we help this neighborhood to have a better place to live. And so I think that most of the problems and the concern that people have about a law like this, we can probably start out through enforcement. And i'll give you an example of what I have to work through in the city.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> since we came to that agreement, i've only had one case where an owner was not doing what they were supposed to do. They didn't have collars on all of the dogs and legality the batteries go -- and let the batteries go bad. I worked with that owner, also the company that bought the system, they went back in, retrained the dogs, got everything back the way it needed to be, I haven't had any other problems from that neighborhood or household in a couple of years now. I think that we can work through enforcement and how we are dealing with the problems in a way that can solve the problems.
>> I have a question. There seems to be some confusion. Well, we have it here. If you could just for the record tell folks right now under the current scenario in the unincorporated if something like this is going on, menacing, threatening, all of those things that we have talked about, who are they supposed to call because we are getting conflicting reports about whether people are being encouraged or discouraged from calling certain folks. Do they call 311, do they call animal control, the sheriff's office, all three? And it's making sure that there is a record someplace and somebody is working that as opposed to well I was told don't even call there. When something awful happens, you try to backtrack, did somebody know about this, and could respond or is that part of the problem, not knowing who are we supposed to call if indeed this happens in the unincorporated.
>> we want people to call us, 311, you select option 2 to get to the non-emergency services, and then, services better tracking to the point that you made, when that call comes into 311, they send it over to me electrically, to our dispatch office, we have it when the caller hangs up, it appears on our screen. We can evaluate the situation. In some cases we may just call . They back and say there's nothing we can do about this issue or more detailed information or whatever, analyze it. If something needs a field response, we will dispatch an officer to go out and look at the situation. But I want everybody to call us that's having an issue with animals. Even if we don't have a tool in place or if there's not something that we can do to solve the problem, we are sure going to try to get them connected to other resources to help solve the problem or gather data so I can come back to you and say these are the kind of problems I知 having, I don't have a tool to solve the problem. And a little bit off of the topic of the dogs, but we do get calls about skunks, opossums, racoons, bats, coyotes, deers, all kinds of things, some of those we have something we can do about it, some of them we don't have something we can do about it. Like chickens in some of the denser areas can really be a problem because they wake everybody up, there's not a law against having chickens, there's not a lot that we can do about that. But we do want to hear from people because that is a way to try to help them, also a way to monitor what's happening in the community and develop appropriate responses if there's problems out there.
>> thanks dorinda.
>> right now, if I live in the unincorporated area of Travis County, and a pack of dogs for some reason decide to hang out in my front yard, I don't want them there, I call, there's nothing that you can do to help me?
>> I think that's an accurate description given the very --
>> if they are man that'sing and I don't -- menacing and I don't provoke them, state law may be available.
>> yes, sir.
>> if I true to shoo them away, that may well be provocation.
>> yes, sir.
>> the law prohibits me from taking a weapon of some sort and achieving what I consider to be justice under the circumstances.
>> well, I would recommend against that as well. There's the law, but also not safe, you might miss.
>> okay.
>> and the other thing, I would say that, judge, is the animals are causing you the problem, they are not the source of the problem.
>> they are being dogs.
>> they are being dogs, we don't want to do something inhumane, we want to do something proactive to make this situation not occur at the people's level so the animals aren't hurt because people are frustrated. That is a big concern we don't want people to be frustrated so that they are doing harm to the animals.
>> can you stick around a few minutes.
>> yes, sir.
>> we do have the sheriff's office here. Anything before we hear from a few residents?
>> no, sir.
>> okay.
>> and you will be here for the rest of -- why don't we start hearing from residents then. If we have questions later on, we may have to get --
>> okay.
>> we have -- we have -- anything?
>> I was going to say the court member should have received a packet from hhs with a variety of different information and at any point that you all have questions about any of that information, I would be available to talk about it.
>> okay.
>> thank you. We have five seats available at the table. And if you would like to give comments on this issue today, if you would please come forward and give us your full name and welcomed be happy to get your comments. If -- maybe we can start to the left here, work our way around to the right. As you finish, if there are questions from the court, we will take those and if you would just return to your seat we will give others an opportunity to come forth and give comments, also. Yes, sir?
>> can you hear me now?
>> we sure can.
>> all right. I知 either a -- neither a dog lover or dog hater. I've had them, I don't have one now.
>> state your name.
>> jim [indiscernible], 107 lake shore drive. I do not live in the city, I live in an ecj area. The city of Austin's laws are about as toothless as an old dog, lots of bark, no bite. People go on the hike and bike trail complain about dogs chasing them there. There's not a -- if there's not a leash law there should be, should have a limit of length to it. Dangerous dogs are the problems, not just dogs in general. What makes a dog dangerous, it can and may do severe injury to a person or -- let's limit it to people now. What makes them that way, they have both the size and temperament to do something about it. For instance, a chihuahua has a bad temperament, but can't really hurt you. The saint bernard has the size and strength, but very gentle dogs typically. They only have 12 dangerous dogs in Austin. I find that difficult to believe. I would say that maybe 50 like in the city of Austin you have 500,000 people, probably 50 truly dangerous people here. And you don't impose a curfew or a leash on every person in this town because one out of every 10,000 is a bad character. Likewise I don't think that you should put a leash law on dogs in the county. The ratio is probably similar. So anyway, dr. Vicious dogs, pit bulls, rottweilers, dobieer man's, those are primarily the bad actors. Compound that with the dumped dog which then revert into pack dogs and become dangerous. Now, there's a conflict here because dogs used to be considered property and just recently there's a $40,000 jury award for a dog that got off the leash, ran down the street and got killed. I think that's prepostrous. The city is changing. The city does everything as reactionary sort of thing. With the advent of cell phones and camera phones people can document this. Certainly call in and complain. The bicyclists are a good example. I would suggest those people have a -- have a camera on their helmet and actually drive by that area, when it happens, call the constable, they drive up, parks a quarter mile away, has a camera, watches what's going on. Sees the dog, first offense is a fine, second offense is a big fine plus they get their equipment snipped if it's a male, third event [indiscernible], I don't think you should be dragging a judge in on these proceedings. This is just a dog. Yet there isn't a dog owner in the world that won't say fido wouldn't hurt a soul, in fact they do and will. In Williamson county it's a felony to I believe injure a dog. My fishing buddy's friend, seven years old, he was convicted -- charged -- 780 years old, charge -- 70 years old, charged and convicted for killing a dog. He said that he didn't do it. He probably remembers the good old days of Texas justice, you had a nuisance dog, ranchers would just kill the dog. So had that happened, had he done this or allegedly done this six months later, now it's a felony so take the -- go back to the bicycle riders. If they are not getting any relief say i'll take the law into my own hands, take some poison tablets. Drops them along the road. Says the dogs eats them. He's committing a felony, plus not targeting the problem. So I think that -- that is not the answer to do nothing. But certainly not the answer to have a blanket ordinance where we have a leash law and so we need that -- we need a better solution, better solution needs more time, better solution will probably involve the -- the better means to record and document these sort of actions and I think that all parks should have a leash requirement because I remember being at mansfield dam and my old dog would just toddler along, a doberman came racing up and got my dog. I whacked him right in the face he left. It could have turned really nasty in a short time. That's all that I have to say. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> in my scenario, if I知 a resident --
>> pardon.
>> so if I知 a Travis County resident and my neighbor's dog camps out in my front yard, what relief would I have?
>> I don't know. But it seems to me that the county could -- the city's reaction is awfully feeble. You have property and you are considering provoking him, telling him -- you are considered provoking him because you tell him to get out. That dog is on your property menacing you just by his presence, I think that you should be able to take stronger actions. You shouldn't have to just turn it over to them to come with their little dog catch catcher net and those dogs do harm. Why are we tying up a court system to get rid of the dog, you know,? People say that dog is bad, we all know that he's a bad dog. We have pictures of him chasing people.
>> okay.
>> joe, is the scenario that the judge described in some of our parks, is that satisfactory to your point of view, that is you are not required to have those dogs on a leash, but they must at all times be under the control of the owner. Does that get us closer to what you are talking about?
>> well, I don't think -- most of us normal people would consider a vicious breed, he says he's under my control, he comes here every time I tell him to. Maybe, maybe not. That's what happened at that new york park where that woman got killed by a couple of dogs. So no I think there just needs to be a leash on them all. Maybe certain parts have a shorter leash, on the hike and bike trail you have people passing in close proximity. Here a woman is running along with her dog, another guy comes running right at her. A dog thinks that's menacing, if he's on a seven foot leash they can contact hip, vice versa. But now mansfield dam, maybe a 20 or 30-foot rope could be sufficient.
>> judge, I want everybody to understand in the room that I think that there is a difference between a leash law and a tether law. I mean, I mean, I -- I知 in full agreement that you ought to have your dog on a leash if you are walking your dog in the park, down the street, or whatever. I mean, I mean, whether you are in the county, I mean, whether two people whether you are in a neighborhood in the county. Now tether a dog, I mean, if you don't have a fence, a lot of people in the county don't have fences, but your dog, you know, obviously, I mean, what dog is not going to leave its grounds, I mean,, you know, unless there was, you know, one of those invisible fences. But I think that there is a differentiation, the differentiation between leash and tether, that's what I would, you know, eventually like to get to. I think there are going to be people that just want dogs tethered. I fear if that is where some people want to go like Commissioner Sonleitner said, I mean, when she did I think it was in '96 and '97 said that -- ann said that your office did a lot of research. If you go out in the community and ask people in the county would they want dogs, what I consider tethered, I mean, so that they really can't get off their grounds, overwhelmingly, I mean, people went crazy about that because they didn't want their dogs on a tether. And I think that --, I mean, I wouldn't be surprise -- it wouldn't be surprising to me if we were to exercise this or do some sort of a survey in 2005, I would bet you that most people would say absolutely I do not want to have my dog tethered. Now I think that you probably could pass something or, you know, have a chance of making something happen with a leash law and so I --, I mean, that's -- I知 certainly willing to hear all of the testimony. But as the precinct 3 Commissioner, I can tell you that I知 going to work, you know, charge trying to do something leash-wise if you have your dog and you are walking your dog. Now, tethering your dog I think is going to be an uphill battle that we are going to have because I think that the legislature, I mean, obviously you would have to go to the legislature to do that. Then I think what you have is a community that really comes out against the people that, you know, what we're all here for I think is doing something so that human life, you know, is no in danger, I mean,, you know, not to say -- I think that your dog's life shouldn't be in danger, either. If you have a dog that's a docile animal and to me I知 as protective of your animal, I mean, obviously more protective of a human being but, you know, I don't think that your dog ought to be subject to, you know, being attacked as well. Just so you sort of know, you know, what my thoughts are, but I知 very interested in hearing where everybody is coming from so I知 sorry.
>> a tether is just a long version of a leash anyway. That just gives us a broad statement. But I walk my neighborhood, we probably have a dozen dogs there. And none of them are a problems the neighbor's dog walk over, I talk to them, they mooch snacks, go back, stuff. It's a non-problem in my neighbor.
>> with that kind of dog, jim, but not a non-problem if you walked up and tried to give the dog a snack and he wants to take your arm off.
>> that's exactly what I知 talking about, the dangerous dog thing yet there's no remedy for summary judgment against dangerous dogs. This [indiscernible] process and then judge's orders, that's what I知 saying that there needs to be a mechanism where you can can take documentation and present it to an administrative level, they say okay we are going to get the dog [indiscernible]
>> okay. Yes.
>> my name is grace lehto, I live at 600 jet lane. About seven years ago, my -- my husband and I live on 16 acres. And we have sheep and goats. About seven years ago, we went out and a pack of wild dogs had killed six of our sheep. The next day, they killed six more. So we brought all of the sheep and goats up next to the house. Which of course was wonderful to watch -- look at your bedroom window and see the sheep watching back in at you. But, you know, these things happen. Then we went out and bought two great pyranese and we haven't had a problem since. We've talked to the people who run cattle on the 500-acres behind us and they are happy to have our great pyranese dogs wandering their property. These dogs are so gentle that poppy allows the chickens to eat out of her dish and kind of backs up and gets a little shy, but she just does not tolerate something that will hurt our sheep or goats. You know, so I think when you are talking about making leash laws and containment laws, you need to think about some kind of exception for working dogs. It a different thing. Judge Biscoe, in your scenario, where you come home and there's a dog threatening you, you call me. I'll bring poppy over and those dogs will disappear. And she'll, you know, she won't hurt you, but she'll get white fur all over you and probably try to lick you.
>> how do you keep poppy on your property?
>> we don't. We don't.
>> but your dog wanders off your 16-acres.
>> yes, she goes on to the cattle ranch that's 500-acres behind it. We have checked with the people who run the cattle there.
>> but if the owners of the cattle ranch in fact did not want your dog on their property and they asked you --
>> okay, then we would keep her in the fence with the sheep and goats.
>> that's -- seems to me that makes sense. As a country boy from east Texas, back home we always kind of looked at it that way. There were dog that's ran loose, but there were neighbor that's didn't want dogs there, we thought it was our responsibility to fence our dogs in and not the neighbor's responsibility to fence them out. I mean, when I look at it, I mean, good neighborly policy answers a lots of these questions. But not everybody is a good neighbor.
>> yeah.
>> so the question is in the unincorporated areas does the county have some responsibility to be proactive in providing a greater level of protection than we have done historically and to be honest, it sort takes an horrific example, you know, for us really to start focusing on the issue which is, you know, in the past if i've gotten, you know, one or two stray dog complaints a year, that's been the maximum. By that's not to say there haven't been issued out there. You keep your dog on your property that's fine. If your dog is in public on the neighbor's property, then the question is what do we do, if anything.
>> yeah. You are right. And like I said, we wouldn't have gotten these dogs had we not had the problem with the wild dogs. We called animal control, they told us they could get out there in five days. Which wasn't going to do any good because at the rate of six a day, we weren't going to have any sheep or goats left. And, you know, and you were talking about shooting them. Well, I think, you know --
>> I wouldn't recommend that by the way.
>> but you are protecting your livestock. If you are protecting your livestock,, you know, I went after them with a shotgun I missed but I scared them off from killing anymore. They were getting ready to kill number 7 that day. Then they just leave them there. I called, you know, I called television station, I can't remember which one, told them, you know, because we live within a half a mile of -- well, it not there anymore, but there was a daycare center, they had killed a 140-pound ram. If they can do that, they could have killed the kids.
>> right.
>> yes, by the way, we will need those two chairs. I think there are others who want to give testimony today, right.
>> I will go sit down.
>> thank you.
>> don't leave, though.
>> yes.
>> my name is judy gregsby, I live at 3105 [indiscernible] woods. I have four children, 16, 15, 13 and nine. Several years ago, about five years ago, was the beginning of a long nightmare with the dog that lives across the street by the name of summer. Summer -- my daughter at the time was five years old and was walking our dog and in fact went on to their property, summer was in the front yard. She was intending to introduce the dogs to one another so they could be friends. While she's standing there holding the leash, summer attacked our dog and shredded it. We -- we spent several months trying to get her back to health and she did recover. Because my daughter went on to their property, I did not press charges, I didn't -- I tried to be very neighborly, very reasonable with the guy. The -- exactly one week later, she attacked another dog, my neighbor was walking his dog and she ran off of the property and on to the street where he had his dog and attacked her. Eventually leading to her having to be put down. Over the course of the next several years, there were numerous accounts of dogs being attacked by this dog. I would see the dog out in the front yard, not contained, but on its property, and would call the owner and ask him to please put the dog away because my children could not play in the front yard, in our own front yard with this dog across the street because we didn't know what it would do. It had already shown aggressive behavior. He was unwilling to do anything about that. He was unwilling to tie her up. He was unwilling to put her in the house or the back yard. He had construction going on inside his house and said that it wasn't his fault, the construction workers let her out, he couldn't do anything about it. Those are the things that lead up to this weekend. On new year's eve, the dog was out. I called animal control, got passed off to several different entities, by the time I finally wound up with the sheriff's department they said we'll send a sheriff out to tell you why we can't do anything. They did. They came out and said this dog hasn't done anything recently, and we can't do anything about it. At this point, the house -- no one was home, the front door was open and the dog was out front. And I have no way of contacting the owner. We asked them to please put the dog away. The sheriff's department. We asked to please put the dog away. They said we can't do anything to the dog, it's on its property and it hasn't done anything. 1 -- that was about 5:00 in the afternoon on new year's eve. 1:30 in the morning we are saying goodbye to our friends who had come over and summer came across the yards and on to our driveway and killed my miniature dachsund. The sheriff's department was called again and again they did nothing. She was back on her property. And they said we don't have a leash law. They referred to that. And they did nothing. They would not put the dog away. They wouldn't put her in the house, the door was open. They wouldn't put her in the back yard. The officer called his sergeant to see if there was something that he could do and the sergeant said, no, because you might have to shoot the dog in order to get it into the back yard and we don't want that. We got to bed at about 4:00 in the morning and I get a phone call from my neighbor at 9:00 in the morning saying that this dog has yet again attacked a dog and in this instance a woman's face was bitten and will have to have plastic surgery. We don't know if this dog will survive. The only reason the dog was picked up was by rabies control because a woman was bit. We are tired of the law enforcement agencies having no authority and no power to take action. If there were a leash law, or containment law, and an animal or an owner was not able to contain their animal, these law enforcement officers would had the opportunity, would have had the freedom and the authority to do something with this dog. And as it stood, they could do nothing. Two dogs died and a -- possibly two dogs, one died, one is in intensive care and having -- spending thousands of dollars trying to save it, and a woman has to have plastic surgery. As I mentioned I have four children. They have -- they saw what happened. They are the one who's came and told -- they didn't see the dogs get attacked, but they are the one who's came and told me that the dog was out. Knowing that they weren't allowed to be outside in the front yard under those circumstances. They knew that we called the sheriff's department. They saw the lack of action. I知 trying to teach my children to respect the law and to respect law enforcement officers. And our whole family felt completelily unprotected and completely at a loss as to what could be done legally. This was the situation that made us feel that we -- if anything was going to be done, that in order to protect our family, we would have to take matters into our own hands because law enforcement agencies would not do it. And that is not the situation I think that you want to be creating in neighborhoods. I mean I know you want to be able to respect law enforcement agencies, but it's not going to happen if they are powerless. These guys obviously felt powerless, we felt powerless, but we were getting pushed to the edge. It's a serious, serious situation and I want my kids to respect the law. In talking to different agencies, one in particular this morning, I知 of the understanding that this dog -- the owner has some legal battles and is probably -- well, he's been in the newspaper recently, he -- he has said that in the past that he would get rid of the dog. He has said in the past that he was going to find another home for the dog. That never happened. He has said in this situation that he was not going to pick the dog up from rabies control. But he has not signed an owner release yet. It is our understanding that this dog could feasible be put back into the pool at the humane society, at the shelter. And supposedly get some behavior modification therapy. And eventually be adopted by another family. I can tell you this man has already taken the dog to behavior modification therapy on several accounts. Anybody who adopts this dog is going to have a dog and they are not going to know what the situation is. It could -- it is -- it goes off its property to cainld dthen it goes back -- to kill and then it goes back home. It's not a safe dog to have. If there's a leash law or containment law, I don't care what you call it. If there is some kind of law put into place so that a dog like this can be removed from the neighborhood, then it will be a much safer situation. But if you don't put something into law that gives law enforcement agencies the authority to remove an animal of this kind that has shown aggression over and over and over again, it's going to be a person even more damaged the next time. My daughter is still traumatized, still has nightmares and this woman that you are about to hear about is incredibly traumatized.
>> do you all have a homeowners association?
>> we do.
>> do you have laws or regs in your homeowners association that has a canement clause.
>> it does not -- it is hazy, I will pull it that way. The homeowners association the management company that is supposed to be helping us filed a formal complaint and that's about all of the action that we have gotten out of them.
>> this is where, I missed what area is this?
>> this is in Barton Creek.
>> Barton Creek, thank you.
>> where are you --
>> foot hills.
>> in the hills.
>> foothills off of lost creek boulevard.
>> on sandia loop.
>> yes, off the loop, thank you.
>> yes.
>> thank you.
>> my name is nancy callahan and we are all neighbors on the same street. In the foothills. We live at 3103 pointy woods. My husband bruce and I have been Travis County residents for 20 years. We moved to the foothills because of the security and because of the perceived services, protective services because we are in a gated area there. It's not a big neighborhood. There are probably 35 owners and I would say the majority have dogs. Two years ago, when I was out walking my terrier, I was attacked by the dog that judy has just referred to. And at that time the dog was biting the back of my terrier, I got down on the ground and was struggling with it to get my dog out of this dog's mouth. We tried to be respectful of the fact that maybe this was a one-time situation until we learned of all of the other attacks in that same neighborhood by this one animal. I then began a three-month process of letter writing, calling animal control, calling Travis County sheriff's department. Frankly, with all due respect to all of those people, everyone else it was their responsibility, not our responsibility and we were running around chasing our tail. No one gave us any help. No one said they would do anything. In fact the comments ranged from we have no power because you live in a gated area to a person was not harmed and so therefore no action could be taken. We went and met with this owner, we warned him to remove the animal once we discovered all of the trauma that had been inflicted on other families in the neighborhood. And for a time it seemed as if the dog was removed. However, a few weeks ago, it became apparent that that was not the case. And we were out of town on new year's day, we got a call that our house sitter and our dog had been severely attacked again by this same dog. And I brought photos because I think that it's important for you to see the range of damage that a minute attack can cause, not only to an animal, who was about a 10th of size of this dog, but also to this woman who was trying to defend her. They both were hospitalized. And our dog probably won't make it. We don't know. The bigger issue here is how is it possible that one block in the city of Austin, Travis County, wherever you choose to say we live, can have so many families that are affected by one person and as one of you said, it is not the animal we're talking about here. It is an owner who did not contain their animal on their property, but a bigger issue is we got no help. If -- if these police officers and sheriff's people are powerless because they are afraid of being sued, then help us all with this. Because what a mess we are living in. For all of these families to have so much sadness and financial problem, because no one will take an action, is beyond comprehension. This is an issue of personal liberty versus public safety. And everybody here from our group says we are all for personal liberty. But where do you all defend those of us and help us draw the line? 12 dogs on a vicious dog list in a city this size is an embarrassment. An embarrassment. And our neighbor, larry, is the only reason that our house sitter is not more badly hurt than she is and that our dog is still living. Because he went out there with a baseball bat, which didn't even affect this dog. Because it was in a killing mode and it could care less. And why the night before when sheriff's department people could have at least put it in the owner's home and shut the door, I wouldn't have to be sitting here, you wouldn't be looking at pictures of bloody messes on an animal and a human being. We don't get it.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> anybody else here to give testimony today? Please come forward. We've got three more chairs available. Last opportunity.
>> good morning. [indiscernible] I live at 3104 point woods, neighbor to the last two people. I actually was the one who I thought my dog was the first one attacked in December of 2000. I was walking in the middle of the street. The time frame the whole development wasn't filled in, there was an empty lot where I used to make sure my dog [indiscernible] before I got there. 13 years old, i've had her since she was a puppy, six to eight weeks old. At the time again she was attacked and I had pictures very similar to that, in fact today was very hard for me to take a look at this. My dog lived for about eight months when I had to put her away. I think that I felt really guilty that I did nothing about it. And then I知 just really angry because it doesn't seem to have mattered anyway. Because these people really weren't going to get anything taken care of for them. So, you know, I think there are aggressive dogs, menacing dogs I think you called them, judge. Yes, I think that it's the people, this yard did have an invisible fence at the time. Whether the owner had turned it on I don't know. I really don't know. I never saw the dog coming. It was very aggressive. I was very frustrated. I was scared and my dog had a miserable eight to nine months. I love dogs. I like dogs to have freedom, but people need to keep control of their dogs. And, you know, if their neighbors are happy letting them run free, okay. I don't think people would call out if there was a non-aggressive attack. But when there is something must be done. So, you know, I just don't want to see anybody else get hurt. I知 a little worried that this dog will be back. I知 worried that if it's not back in our neighborhood, it will be back in another neighborhood. Somebody else will get hurt. And so yeah I feel a little responsible that I didn't do anything initially. And I知 not sure what I could have done. But just I don't want to see it happen again. I have a hard time living with it. That's all that I have to say.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> yes, sir, my name is larry wells. I reside at 3105 point wood, in the same community, same block, same street with the other folks that just spoke of. I have lived in the community there at Barton Creek for four and a half years, I have a wife and a 22-year-old son who is mentally handicapped who lives in our home with our family. There's been four and a half years of frustration by this single dog that the previous parties just discussed. I知 angry. I知 frustrated. And the reason I知 angry and I知 frustrated is because you cannot get anything done regarding an aggressive animal in your community who refuses to stay on his property and the owner, more importantly, the individual owner of the dog, won't listen, is irresponsible, doesn't care, doesn't pay medical bills and we have a situation that is developed like this. My wife and I were sitting at home new year's morning, the last incident that occurred, 8:30, 8:45 in the morning having a cup of coffee, she in her robe, me in my pajamas and robe in the family room. Knowing the night before there was an issue, but not knowing the morning before at 1:30 in the morning the neighbor's dog had been killed. We hear screams from our front yard. From the animal as well as from -- from the dog sitter and home sitter of the callahans. We were at the front door, grabbed the baseball bat, respond to the yard. To separate the two. I don't know how many of you have ever seen an aggressive animal, part pit bull and part lab, it's a horrific sight to see a human being on their knees with blood coming from their face, the animal that she's holding and clutching to her chest was ripped open and a dog with a death grip that won't let go. This is not a neighborhood where ball bats come out of the front yard or out of the front door. This doesn't happen, shouldn't happen. As the others have said, numerous calls over the past four years on numerous incidents to Travis County. One finger is pointed to the other, the other is pointed to the other, and the residents get no relief. My handicapped son is about 5'6" about 110 pounds, he roams the neighborhood in a gated community in a golf cart. His mental condition is considered retarded and his fine motor skills and gross motor skills are limited at best. But he does fine. His defense of this animal would not have been a good one, I assure you. Her defense, the victim, a normal human being, was pitiful. And could not be defended. It's appalling that nothing has been done. I had three snauzers, animals as a child all my life. Like you your honor I grew up in west Texas. We pretty much took care of business on our own. As many here today say we have elected not to do that, not to take it into our own hands, but we are frustrated. The officers that responded after about an hour to an hour and a half with the incident that occurred, that morning, to the human and to the last dog, took an hour, hour and a half to get there, had to get animal control out of bed. I understand it's a new year's day. I understand perfectly. Took him another hour to get there. In the meantime the dog sits on the front driveway within 25 yards of all of us, and the officers, and nothing was being done. Well, what do you expect, you ask? Containment? Behind closed doors. Shotgun to the head. Retrieve the dog. Do something. They won't do it. You ask the request why? Later if you assemble your faculties, the officers are afraid of litigation. We live in such a society in Travis County, a society that we are so concerned about litigation that we can't deal with an issue such as this, some dumb animal. We're frustrated, folks. It's not a matter of tethering, not a matter of leasing, it's a matter of putting some laws into the hands of the people who serve us and serve us well. We respect Travis County sheriff's department, their deputies, humane society, animal control. But you have got to give them some tools to deal with. If I would have brought the shotgun out of the house and missioned as the turmoil was developing, I missed twice with the baseball bat. I might have shot the poor victim. That's not what we want to see. Not what you want to see. We really don't want to kill the dog. But the officers need some tools, some laws, some efficient, easy to interpret laws so that they know what their actions can be to contain or remove not a normal dog unleashed walking the neighborhood. I heard the lady speak earlier on behalf of the city, on behalf of the Travis County. Saying we don't want to talk to the people who are keeping their dogs somewhat under control on or off a leash you will never see us, she said. When you have an aggressive dog like this this the neighborhood, regardless of where you live in Travis County, makes me no difference, you need to be able to ismment some law that's give you some laws to take corrective action. Not a drive off, come back, it needs to be immediate before it becomes very serious, this unfortunately got very serious. So I ask you for your help.
>> give me your name one more time, sir.
>> larry, last name is wells.
>> so this last attack occurred in the street?
>> no, sir. It was in my yard about -- about five yards into any yard. This is the second attack in my yard, sir. The first one was approximately 12 months ago was animal to animal by the same dog and the human to my knowledge was not bitten.
>> and where is your home in relation to summer's owner's home.
>> across, physically across the street, sir.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> yes, sir?
>> my name is bruce solesco, I live in apache shores where the small girl's mauling happened. I have lived there for 12, 15 years now, yes, we do have some packs of dog that's wander the neighborhood. But 95, 99% of the dogs are all good dogs as I would say. Of course, we have some instances as such, the horrific one that we all heard about in the news, but I don't believe a cover all leash law is a solution. I take a lot of time to train my dogs, I have labradors, they are good dogs. Just like we have heard before. The lady that spoke from the humane society, I really feel for her because here if -- if anything was instituted as such, a leash law or anything like that, she's already said that she -- they are covered up, where are they going to get the money to enforce this law or whatever you choose to put in place to protect some of these things that have happened from bad dogs. One idea I thought about, we do in Texas here have a livestock law. It's very specific on what animals it covers, but it also does show that the owner is responsible for anything that happens should that livestock get out. Is there anything, way, shape or form, this is retroactive, not proactive, but would the owner of the dog that has done all of this damage, would they not, I hate to say not automatically responsible, but assumed responsibility. It is the owner's fault that these dogs are the way they are. Can the dog -- police dog, child dog, dog that helps with the handicapped people, you can train a dog to do anything. I知 afraid to say that it is in the owner's fault that the dogs have turned into what they are, they are very dangerous. I really believe that we ought to tread carefully what we are trying to institute as legislation here to protect humans, yes. But to also protect the animal, too. My dogs do roam the neighborhood semi freely. They do come back, come right in the fence. I like the freedom of having the dog sit on the front porch and watch people go by. But then again my dog doesn't run out and which is and maul bicyclers, either. I知 asking tread lightly on this issue. One bad apple doesn't ruin a whole basket kind of thing and these incidents do happen. They have always happened historically with dogs and biting people, whatever. But it basically is how the dog was raised or lack of raised. That's all that I have to say.
>> thank you.
>> okay. Thanks. Yes?
>> well, my opinion is such that I wish that I had a bullet proof vest on today I think after all of this other testimony. I have lived in the county for 26 years.
>> what's your name.
>> gail atwater. And my family has chosen to live there for personal freedom. We have a -- a very nice house, the property next door is a boarded up trashed out trailer that all of the kids in the neighborhood use to shoot paint guns at. It's probably a neighborhood very much like apache shores. If I asked my neighbors why they chose to buy there, they would tell you because of the absence of rules. Because they want to live in their own neighborhood the way they see fit. And I bet that one of the 12 dangerous dogs designated in the county is in our neighborhood. And that dog was designated as a dangerous animal because of the people in my neighborhood who recognized it as a dangerous animal and made the effort to have the animal declared and now there's a six foot fence and the people have a huge liability policy, et cetera, et cetera. So the law is there. It works. I知 -- unfortunately for the folks in Barton Creek foothills, who say they have 35 families living in a gated community, it's hard for me to believe that if -- if they could get control of a very menacing animal that the lady from animal control said would meet the criteria, then it's not a problem of laws. It's a problem of enforcement. It's a problem of enforcement. They have a menacing animal in their neighborhood. And no one enforces that aspect of the law. Now we're thinking about passing another ordinance or law or something. We all know that we are not going to hire 50 animal control people. It took me an hour and 15 minutes to get here from my home today. So obviously one or two more animal control people are not going to come to my house in 30 second if there's a problem in my neighborhood. Travis County sheriffs can't get to my neighborhood for 911 calls for a considerable amount of time. You know, I don't know what the answer is. But it's not another law. The law is there. It's not being enforced. Or it can't be enforced because of manpower. I知 not here to judge what's wrong. I知 only here to say there's a law. It's not being enforced, what good does it do to pass another law. I will tell you what it will mean in my family. What I will do is go home and tell my children, another law that is only enforced when somebody decides they want to enforce it. It's another law that you don't really want to enforce against everybody. It's rids close, a law that -- ridiculous, it's a law that we ignore. If you want to teach your children about law enforcement, you teach them that there are laws in place for a reason, they are enforced, you should obey them. Now there's a zillion laws out there that were passed because we want a magic wand to make a perfect world, sometimes people will enforce them, sometimes they won't. I mean, I hope you have the understanding and intellect and judgment to decide what laws we are supposed to obey, which ones we aren't. When is law enforcement an issue of money and manpower and things like that that will determine whether laws are enforced, it's -- it's -- I mean I can't imagine what the number of laws in this county looks like, stacked on top of each other. There's a law here. It just needs to be enforce the. If we care, find the money to get animal control out there to take care of menacing animals. People in the foothills of barton hills, get together with each other, get your property owners to demand that there's a -- some kind of a law in your neighborhood. I know I知 not popular, but it's the truth, absolutely truth. We don't need another law.
>> do you think we need the dangerous wild animal or dangerous animal definition? Maybe -- maybe modified?
>> this animal in barton foothills meets all of the qualifications. I mean that's not just a menacing --
>> seems to me like summer on should have been one of the 12 or number 13.
>> absolutely. I知 here to say I bet you one of the 12 dangerous animals is in my neighborhood. We took care of that dangerous animal.
>> but like the gentleman before said, 98, 19% of the dogs -- 99% of the dogs are not vicious. 98, 98%, 99% of the residents comply with regulations. If you change the standard of how you are supposed to control your dog, how it relates to other dogs and residents of the neighborhood, then we would expect 98 to 99% of the residents to comply with it. It's the one or two percent that the inspectors are hired basically to assist.
>> but that's not what she said. She said --
>> I知 talking about the whole thing. She was just one person giving testimony today. We've had a whole lot of e-mails, we have pulled various statutes and in my view what I知 thinking about we already have in most of the county parks anyway. But in my view, too, most situations, if my neighbor doesn't object to my dog going over, then there's no problem. If my neighbor does object, I think as a good neighbor I ought to keep my dog out of the neighbor's yard. And my guess is most people agree with that. Will comply with it. But there are a few who won't. And I think that's where government comes in. And it's an agonizing question, but there are issues. There are problems and most of these were not -- were not on our radar up until recently. And --
>> it's not a perfect world, judge. It's just like the -- the article in the paper about the fireworks and the lumber yard in the city of Austin. It started because of an errant piece of fireworks that was illegal in the city of Austin. The fire commander says it's against the law, but it's hard to enforce the law. It's exactly the same thing. You can have laws and laws and laws and laws and laws and laws.
>> but if you have laws and there are clearly gaps, don't we have a responsibility to close them? If there are discernible enforcement issues, enforcement limitation that's are obvious and fixable, shouldn't we fix them?
>> which person that testified here today told you a scenario that didn't meet the criteria of a dangerous or whatever these word are animal?
>> wait a minute, I have a question about that. Dorinda, are the 12 registered dangerous dogs are they -- are they in that category because they've had instances with humans?
>> with humans.
>> there's the difference. That's what the judge is saying. Not until the lady got out there and was bitten, that's the reason that we need more teeth -- which I said early on, there are vicious dogs that are vicious, I mean, just the fact that they go after dogs and that is what we have got to work on legislative-wise because it's really definition here. I mean that's what we really need to work on because there is a difference -- gail, don't you see the difference that we are talking about? This dog, clearly everybody in this room, everybody would think that that dog had a problem even before the lady was involved. But the problem is if we haven't had the ability and our officers don't have the ability to automatic autonomously come out there, they are not being neglect -- I guarantee you, our lawyer or our law enforcement people don't come out and go, well, I wonder if I知 going to be sued -- I mean what they are apprised of is what they can legally do and legally can't do. I bet most of them say I wish that I could take that dog right now and do everything that everybody in this community wants to have done to it. We don't have the ability to do that unless we legislatively -- i'll tell you, I live in Barton Creek, live in the ridge. I guarantee you, I will work with every one of you, we will sit down with terry keel, our state representative, if we need to put teeth into this thing so that this definition is changed I will work with each and every one of you, I知 sure that representative keel will do that. That's where we need to start as far as I知 concerned with this thing. There clearly was not a problem with this dog legally. I mean until the lady was involved.
>> well, that's not what this lady who -- I understand that she's only one person, but -- but she comes here representing the professional community is that right? That you have some expertise and you said --
>> I was brought in on this case. The problem was that the attacks are on animals. Because the language of the laws deal with aggression against people. Unless the people involved could see through all of that language to say, oh, I should say I知 afraid, too, for myself, then we can't go anywhere. When they said we tried to use these dangerous dog laws as a tool, there's been an attack on animals, this is one of the weaknesses in these laws is that unless the victim, the -- the other dogs that were killed, unless the people that were there at the time, no one -- know enough to say the right things, then our hands are tied. Unless one of them said, I want to file a complaint because I think this dog is threatening my life, and that's kind of how the language reads, then we are stuck with dealing with an animal that killed another animal and the laws that we have in place do not address that. And -- that's why this case wouldn't have been handled under the dangerous dog laws unless we had that affidavit and testimony that could get to us the point that we could add it as an attack on a human. Somebody has to say this dog attacked me.
>> attacked, that isn't what you said earlier. Earlier you said --
>> okay --
>> I知 sorry.
>> ma'am, let's let you conclude. Then we'll to go this gentleman.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> tread carefully and if we see a specific problem is what I知 thinking about too. Let me give you a chance to conclude.
>> I truly wish it were a perfect world, but we just keep making laws and laws and laws, and it's still nuts.
>> what if we substitute a good law for one that's not so good? We have the same number.
>> I would agree with that [ applause ]
>> my name is paul meisler and I知 the property manager for the apache shores homeowners association. And there are a number of our representatives here in the meeting today. And I want to speak to some broader issues, but I think they've been touched on to some degree today already. Our community, apache shores, is regulated by deed restrictions. And that was a question that was brought up earlier, what is your property management company or deed restrictions doing about this problem? Our deed restrictions as in most communities do not specifically speak to dogs. They allow the cities or the counties to address those issues. We do speak broader sometimes to terms like a nuisance factors, noise, noxious behavior, things that are very broad and are left for interpretation. But when you get to dogs and personal possession items, it does not speak to those issues. It also does not allow us or give us the authority to amend those regulations or those deed restrictions without, as many of you might know, an incredible hurdle. In some cases it requires 100% of the homeowners to participate in changing those rules. So it makes it almost impossible even for a small community, much less a large one like apache shores, to address an issue like dogs. So we do things, we side line the issue, we create other mechanisms to try to help us in those matters, maybe such as fence requirements or issues such as loitering or possibly people who participate with their dogs in some behavior, and we can address the people, but not the dogs. Apache shores is a very large community, over 24, 2300 lots. Probably now almost a thousand homes, and growing. Growing all the time. So years ago we were a community that might have been classified as very rural community, with many lots between homes. In fact, you could say if you lived on a half an acre that you were essentially living on multiple acres because all the lots around you weren't developed. So the problem of leash law, dog enforcement was not as severe. In contrast to that many people used apache shores as a dumping ground for abandoning their animals, leaving them in a rental situation or just dropping them off thinking that someone would adopt them. They might try to make themselves a home and might not be put down as they were at the pound. Subsequently we do have packs of dogs in our community. I think unlike some previous testimony from a gentleman who lives in apache shores, I知 not sure I would agree that 99% of the dogs in apache shores are well behaved, well mannered. I think we have packs of dogs that are not owned by individual owners, so we don't even have a recourse to identify an owner with a dog and then try to create some enforcement or support from the homeowner in containing their dog. We have dogs that travel in packs that we cannot control. We don't have the legal ability to control them and the sheriff's department doesn't have the law enforcement capability to control them. So we agree with you and your assessment that the law does need tweaking, it needs refining. And I think we have a terrific sheriff's department. They support our community in many, many ways and respond very promptly, even to noise complaints, but they are limited to what they can do with respect to animal-related complaints. So we need you to act in this particular law, we need you to put some strength behind this law. I think you're on the right track. In fact, calling this to the agenda today in such a prompt fashion I think is admirable and we really appreciate it because you take the step that needs to be taken so that we don't take crazy steps that are unnecessary and really ultimately not in the best interest of our community or in the best interest of Travis County. I wanted to mention also that the tetdzer concept that was -- tether concept that was discussed earlier. I think the reason that communities like ours object to the tethering is because of the danger it causes to the dog and that people tether their dogs and go to work and the dog finds itself wrapped around a tree and cannot get away, does not have water, can't access to water even if water was left out for it. It's 100 degrees in Austin, Texas in the summer, the dog is out exposed to the eliminatements with no food or water and the community elements want to assist that dog. So the tethering concept in and of itself is bad because a proper tether that laws a dog to move 20 feet around a yard but is still staked and does not allow the dog to get entangled in trees or brush with food and water, that can work fine, but I think what people are afraid of is the abuse, and that's what we see. I don't think that tethering is the issue. Containment is the real issue or control is the issue. And we need the ability to enforce and to restrain dogs that are in packs, that don't belong to anybody, that nobody claims. We need the ability to have those dogs trapped and picked up and removed from the community. Without that ability, even if everybody else is playing by the rules, we're going to still continue to have problems because these dogs cannot be contained by anyone and no one claims responsibility for them. So I want to make sure as a property manager that everyone understands, we would love to have the ability, the enforcement capability, the tools and the financial support to be able to do the job if the county can't do it, but I think it's impractical to expect neighborhood communities through the deed restrictions and their associations to be able to address this problem. It's a perfect example where the county does in fact need to come in and not dictate what color we paint our houses, but whether or not we law dogs -- allow dogs and wild dogs to run our communities or whether we run our communities.
>> paul, you identified another gap because we do have the ability under the rabies control act to deal with dogs running in a pack, but it's really from the perspective of the concern that these dogs have rabies and they can be impounded. But if it turns out they don't have rabies, then they go back. And any kind of violation in terms of not turning them over appropriately is class b misdemeanor, a traffic ticket. So it really is in the perspective of rabies as opposed to the words dangerous or threatening or menacing or anything, not one of those words appears in the section, subsection dealing with dogs running in a pack. It's strictly from the rabies perspective, which clearly we've identified is one concern, but is certainly not the overriding concern that we're hearing about this morning. Thanks, paul.
>> thanks.
>> thank you, paul.
>> my name is tommy miller. I知 president of (indiscernible) of Austin. And vince brand invented this pet containment in the 70's and it's a training base system. We condition dogs to signal to stay in their respective areas. Most of the Commissioners might remember that we used to xerox before we learned how to copy. Unfortunately, invisible fences suffered that same fate. Invisible fence refers to the generic pet containment. It's so over the counter and people install and train themselves if there's any training highly ineffective. We go out and we evaluate pets to see who should be on the system and who is not. We do not put aggressive pets on, we don't put pets with a biting history on. Aggressiveness to humans or other animals. We're fortunate. We get to deal with the conscientious pet owners that care about the safety and welfare, humane treatment of their pet and keeping their pets from bothering their neighbors. As opposed to the former who deals with the other part of our community where you have irrelevant responsible pet owners -- irresponsible pet owners. And what you're faced with is trying to come up with a law. I strongly suggest you listen to her because she has to deal with this issue all the time. Just like clothes, walls shut fit the people that use them. You do have holes in your existing wawm and those need to be -- wall, and those need to be addressed. We can address it from responsibility standpoint, but we can't deal with the people that are not willing to step up and do that. And that's where I think this Commissioners court has a very important job to fill in those holes. I very much support your attitude about tweaking what you have and trying to deal with dogs that have gone beyond being a family pet, but have become a neighborhood nuisance, whether or not they're dangerous to people begs the point of our ability to enjoy our property free from outside interference such as a neighbor's pet.
>> ms. Griggsby.
>> I wanted to clarify that I did repeatedly say that I believed my family was in danger by the presence of this dog not being behind -- in the house or behind a fence. And still nothing was done. It was not -- it was as though I never said it. Another point I wanted to make is this issue of provocation. This woman who was bit in the face, the situation is being treated no differently than -- other than the dog being picked up by rabies control, than if it was just a dog to dog issue because she was considered to have provoked the dog because she got in the way of the dog and it's prey. So this issue of provocation, people are expected by the way we're using this definition, to just allow their dogs to be killed. And that is -- that's something that needs to be addressed in this issue. And Commissioner Daugherty is exactly right that it's -- a lot of it is definition. But to think that you're supposed to stand there and allow your dog to be killed is absurd. It's absurd. It's garbage.
>> dorinda is that an accurate interpretation, that the sitter really was in a sense provoking because that would be disturbing if that's indeed the case?
>> we would have to -- if you interfere with the animal's attack on another animal, then that would be -- and you get bit it would be considered provocation and we wouldn't be able to process it.
>> I find that absurd. You will have to forgive me that I知 out of order. I realize that. But the fact of the matter is she retreated into my yard at least five yards in defense of the animal before she herself was attacked. Secondly, the aggressive dog that's lived across the street from me for four and a half years with the invisible fence that mr. Henry owned did not function and the officer that responded says once an aggressive dog penetrates an invisible fence he will always penetrate it. It hasn't worked since the owner has been there, has never worked.
>> in addition --
>> I知 sorry. We'll conclude this item for today. My recommendation would be that we have it back on the court in two weeks, but I think something should take place between now and then. We're at the end here.
>> my name is marge pace. I live on big horn drive which is in apache shores. I walk three miles everyday. I've lived there for 15 years. About three years ago I was walking my dog and I came in front of this house and two pit bulls came out and attacked me. And it was on a fairly busy street, so I sat still and they kept bumping and bumping and biting, so I thought, well, somebody will come along. I didn't want to try and move because I thought if they knocked me down, I would be in trouble. They did bite me on the leg. So a car came by and they said, oh, come get in the car, and she said, no, no, she went up and turned around, so all I had to do was to open the door and get right in the car. So I went home, I called the sheriff, I called rabies control. They did come out, they picked up the two dogs. They took them in and they kept them. They were not rabid, but the owner did agree to have them put to sleep, so those two are no longer there. Last week I was walking by the same house and I knew they had another pit bull, but they did put up a big fence. This time the dog was in the front yard. It was starting to growl, so I was not willing to try again, so I turned around and went back home, so it did work for me, but it doesn't work otherwise, and I feel strongly that we do need a law. Now, I also know that there are lots of dogs around and I have never had any trouble except with these pit bulls.
>> when was that?
>> three years ago.
>> three years? Okay. Thank you.
>> yes?
>> hi, I知 judy phelps, I own property at apache shores, I owned property for there before moving there and I presentty serve on the board of directors. And serving on that board of directors we hear almost weekly problems with the dogs there. And we've heard stories of other people's dogs being killed. And as we all know about the little girl who was recently brutally attacked and is still in the hospital. We don't know what the answer is. We do know that when we call, many people have said today that the law has the teeth to -- the law doesn't have the tooth to deal with this matter. I've had the sheriff tell me, well, carry pepper spray. You can't arm the neighborhood with pepper spray. It's just -- it's getting worse and worse as the community increases. One of our job problems is I think we have there too are people abandoning dogs. And I have a couple of questions, and I知 not sure who to direct those questions too, but I知 wondering why if a dog is abandoned dog or it doesn't have an owner is that dog not considered a dangerous dog?
>> we'll have the answer to you.
>> just the fact that the dog is there, if it hasn't done anything, then we're not going to be able to put it in the dangerous category under the laws that we have. The other issue that we have with dogs that have been abandoned in neighborhoods is we can't tell that. They don't wear a tag that say somebody threw me out. So when we encounter dogs that are running loose, and that's all they're doing is being loose, then we don't know if they belong to somebody or if they don't belong to somebody, so that leaves us with nothing that we can do with those animals. And because you don't have a canement law in these -- containment law in these areas, we can't pick them up. We don't have the authority to pick them up and take them to the shelter and try to get them back to their home or do whatever else we need to do with them. And if I can make one more comment. That's the other issue with the pack law. You can have a pack law, but if you have three dogs that I own and I let them loose, they're a pack, but they're mine and there's no containment law, so that pack law doesn't always work for us because they may be owned animals that have every right to be running around under our current structure. So there's a bit of a hole in that one as well.
>> my recommendation is that between now and two weeks from today, and that would be July -- January 18th. , that we have a small committee of county people, which would include the sheriff's office, animal health, the county attorney, two members of the Commissioners court to draft appropriate language for the court to consider adopting. Adopting at some point in the future. And what I would like to do is leave on this table down here a sheet of paper where those interested in seeing this language prior to January 18th and giving us input may be contacted. So if you can give us your e-mail address, we'll e-mail it to you or your phone number and we'll figure out a way to get it to you. I would discourage us mailing it to you because the time to review the language before the 18th I think would be eliminated. But we can fax it, e-mail it to you or for that matter have you pick it up, but I doubt that the sheriff's department will agree to deliver it to your home, so let's rule out that option of delivery. How does that sound? And I知 thinking that there are -- and there should be language, I think, that does not impose additional burdens on the law-abiding citizens, but at the same time will give the other public more protection and law enforcement officials more specific guidance and more enforcement authority.
>> just a process question. Would you anticipate on the 18th that it would be posted for action or would you anticipate scheduling a public hearing on that date?
>> what I知 hoping is that we can agree on draft language for a subsequent public hearing.
>> got it.
>> my recommendation would be, john, that we have a public hearing in roughly one week fro January 18th, so not dilly dally, but proceed expeditiously, but cautiously. The language would be very important. I think we want to not just go through the exercise,but make sure that the language gets done what it is that we need. How does that sound? I知 assuming we're able to do this and getting residents involved I think will be helpful as well as the appropriate law enforcement authorities, the sheriff's office, animal health, county attorney's office. This is not a closed committee, so any others who think that they need to be involved, I have no problem with it. And we will later on decide what two members of the court get involved. I see Commissioner Sonleitner and Daugherty giving facial expressions like they are eager for this opportunity. [ laughter ] Commissioner Davis and I are available to assist also. My thinking is that we put draft language together and in about a week we start sharing that language and try to tweak it. Obviously if we have some recommendations, we can't accept all of them, but my hope is to end up with the best language possible that we can review in open session, which I think the law probably requires, on January 18th, for the Commissioners court to approve and then request a public hearing on that specific language for about a week later, which will be January 25th, and our goal would be that in roughly four weeks or so we would have something in place.
>> judge, can I add one other suggestion? That if we find in our work product that there is something that is a gap in state law, that also needs to be brought to our attention so that we can do whatever is appropriate over at the state legislature. We need to do whatever is within our power within the laws that we've got, but if there is yet another gap that can only be resolved by state law, we need to know what that is and start working quickly to gather up support on that.
>> that's a good point because I really feel that in working with representative keel and probably drafting language for some of that gap. Not only that, but I think the entire Travis County delegation, I知 sure that we can approach this in a timely manner and get the Travis County delegation to look at that new language to avoid some of these -- to address some of those gaps that we feel need to be called up during the session. So I think that's appropriate.
>> please leave your address and phone number so we can contact you. Iscussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much for coming down, giving us your input today.
>> move to recess until 1:30.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, January 5, 2005 8:16 AM