VMI77 wrote:speedsix wrote:VMI77 wrote:South Texas RGV wrote:Didn't see this mentioned, but the original post brought this to mind:
TEXAS STATUTES AND CODE / HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
Title 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS
Chapter 822. REGULATION OF ANIMALS
Subchapter B. DOGS THAT ARE A DANGER TO ANIMALS
Current through the 81st First Called Session
§ 822.013. Dogs Or Coyotes That Attack Animals
(a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.
History. Renumbered from Tex. Health & Safety Code § 822.033 and amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1002, Sec. 1, eff. 9/1/2003.
This all boils down to a third party, not WITNESS to an attack, may only detain or impound.....
...nope...doesn't say that at all...(a)(2) is what it says...having knowledge could mean "Joe said"...doesn't have to witness it ...
...(a)(2)(c) is the only reference to detaining or impounding...and that says if a person discovers on a person's property...not MUST but MAY detain...same dog could be shot IF the above applies...and does not say third party...could refer to property owner or someone else caring for the property owner's property...(doesn't say 'person's OWN property')...but doesn't say third party may ONLY...
...the truth shall make you freer
Read it again....unless you've got some knowledge of the law outside what is posted above it doesn't say that.....it specifies who may kill a dog --there are only two parties granted permission to kill: 1) a witness to an actual attack; 2) the owner of an animal attacked (or a person acting on behalf of the owner). These are the people granted this permission --subsets 1 and 2 of paragraph a). No, it doesn't say third party "may ONLY" because it explicitly states who a dog may be killed by. The "may" paragraph limits what someone NOT described in paragraph a) may do...in other words, someone not described by subsections 1 and 2 of paragraph a) doesn't have to do anything, but "may" detain or impound. Someone who just heard from another party, and is not acting on behalf of the owner, is not granted permission to kill.
...ONLY from the law as posted above...there are THREE parties granted permission to kill:
1. a person witnessing the attack (need not be the owner or a person acting on his behalf at his direction...ANY person withessing)
2. the attacked animal's owner(if he has knowledge of the attack...this could come from anyone's telling him)
3. a person acting on behalf of the owner (if he has knowledge of the attack...this could come from anyone's telling him)....and this is your third party who's NOT a witness...but he may kill...
...so this is wrong "This all boils down to a third party, not WITNESS to an attack, may only detain or impound..."
...and this is true ' ...(a)(2)(c) is the only reference to detaining or impounding...and that says if a person discovers on a person's property...not MUST but MAY detain...same dog could be shot IF the above applies...and does not say third party...could refer to property owner or someone else caring for the property owner's property...(doesn't say 'person's OWN property')...but doesn't say third party may ONLY..." any shooting done, he/she must fall under one of the three categories above, as I said...
...a third party who is NOT a witness but has knowledge of the attack...may act on the owner's behalf and shoot a dog even though he didn't witness it...example: "Mr Brown was in town...a pack of dogs show up on his place and attack his chickens...his neighbor Mary, who's 65, sees it and calls her son who lives a few blocks away...who comes over and shoots the dogs...leaves Mr. Brown a note saying what he did..." all legal...and he didn't witness anything...
