Friday, July 10, 2015

PECOS TX - THE CITY IS MAKING SOME CHANGES TO THEIR ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE AFTER NOBERTO LEGARDO, 83, WAS MAULED TO DEATH LAST WEEK BY 3 PIT BULLS

KWES NewsWest 9 / Midland, Odessa, Big Spring, TX: newswest9.com | Pecos Planning to Change Animal Control Ordinance After Man Was Mauled to Death by Dogs (7-9-2015)


The city of Pecos is making some changes to their animal control ordinance. That's after an elderly man was mauled to death by a pack of pit bulls last week.  Noberto Legardo, 83, was feeding his daughters dog next door. Three pit bulls came up to him and attacked him to death. The tragedy led city officials to revise the animal ordinance to prevent this from happening again.

Eric Honeyfield, City Manager of Pecos, said, "For a dog to be declared dangerous, it must be affirmed that it was an unprovoked attack. Once that takes place under state law and our local ordinance, then the choice is ours to have the dog put down, or for the owner to furnish an annual $100,000 liability policy."
 
NewsWest 9 spoke with local pet owners who had mixed feelings about taking out a $100,000 policy for their dogs. Eric Honeyfield says in most cases aggressive dogs involved in violent behavior are put down anyway.
Charles Hamilton, who works in Pecos, said, "It depends on how much you love your dog. I mean I'd take it out for mine, you've gotta have homeowners insurance anyway, and $100,000 worth of insurance isn't going to cost you but an extra couple hundred dollars a month."     
Suzie Montemayor, a resident of Pecos said she'd only take out the policy under certain circumstances. "If they were violent, yes, but I don't think I would have any dogs that would harm people. I wouldn't because I have my kids and I wouldn't like them to be harmed as well," said Montemayor.

City officials say that dangerous dog attacks happen 1-2 times each year in Pecos. As a part of the new ordinance, the city says the first item on their agenda is to create a more aggressive spay and neuter program.
"Our ordinance is kind of weak where we address spay and neutering. In past cities that I've managed, the way to lessen the number of dogs and pets at large is to have a more aggressive spay and neuter program, and we don't have that," said Honeyfield.

Aside from controlling the dog population, city officials say that spaying and neutering your pets can also make them less aggressive.
           
"I'm a male, you take my testosterone away I'm not going to be as aggressive, you know. Spaying and neutering is good either way, because the cities are overrun with strays and they're tearing up peoples garbage and everything else so if that's the ordinance, I'm good with that," said Hamilton.  
The city manager says the ordinance changes are just in the beginning stages. The issue was discussed in Thursday's city council meeting. NewsWest 9 will keep you updated on the latest changes as they happen. 



 

3 comments:

Sputnik said...

When did Americans get so dumb?

First of all it wasn't dogs that did this, it was (yet again) pit bulls. These undogs weren't strays -- they were (yet again) owned by a neighbor, not lost or abandoned, but out on a mauling spree in their own street. They weren't out killing because of testosterone. More than half the gripping undogs that kill are already neutered. Yeah, it's great if no more of them can be born, but that won't protect anyone from the ones that already exist.

Second of all, what good is it to the first victim to make people who own these undogs buy insurance after the fact? And why let any dog that has already attacked, not bitten but attacked, and especially a bulldog, live at all? I suppose they think it'll comfort residents to know "When a pit bull attacks me, my medical bills will be partially paid, as long as the thing has attacked someone before me."

And of course the final points: I'm sure the ordinance will allow feeding your daughter's dog and trying to save its life from a bunch of pit bull types will count as 'provocation', as will a child bicycling past a yard with pit bulls, trying to pet one, trying to feed one, trying to sell the owner Girl Scout cookies, and so on. That's IF the ordinance gets passed at all once the publicity around this murder by pit bull dies down.

Totally useless.

Anonymous said...

They do not know he tried to 'break up a dog fight'. They made that up based on the presence of the lab. If three pits with murderous intent go after a lab, they will very quickly kill it. Lab is alive, man is dead. I think the pits went after the man, not the lab.

Since no one was there but four dogs and a man who can't tell what happened, they feel free to try to make it his fault. Pit bulls do not need the excuse of another dog to attack and kill a human. But, every time one of they attack, their apologists scramble to find a reason it is the victim's fault hence 'breaking up a dog fight'.

Pit bulls are very focused on whatever they're attacking. That lab would've been found dead beside the man if they'd been after it. But, instead it is found down the street... injured, but alive... it had the chance to run away because the pits were focused on the man.

Cardinal said...

The people in this article are so naive. It's a cliche and one we all tire from, but: What kind of governing are we under?