Vet in Texas convicted of animal cruelty

Help Support CattleToday:

cherokeeruby

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS of course
I was disturbed by the guilty verdit of the vet convicted of animal cruely for killing his neighbors dog when it was in his yard killing the vet's chickens. I do not know the particulars of the case but I always though you were allowed to protect your livestock.
 

certherfbeef

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
0
Location
OH
That's what happens when too many city folk move into the country and don't understand thoes "unspoken" rules and codes of conduct. :cry:
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
1
Location
MO Ozarks
Kind of depends on how he killed it. If he shot it that's ok, but if he beat it to death with a clawhammer I wouldn't be too understanding.

dun
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
dun":33iwfmdd said:
Kind of depends on how he killed it. If he shot it that's ok, but if he beat it to death with a clawhammer I wouldn't be too understanding.

dun

Its my understanding that it was a maul, instead of a clawhammer. At least the news reported that it was a "wood splitting tool." I agree with you, Dun. It takes a special kind of person to beat a weenie dog to death with a maul. What a man!
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
1
Location
MO Ozarks
Texan":1pbfuy78 said:
dun":1pbfuy78 said:
Kind of depends on how he killed it. If he shot it that's ok, but if he beat it to death with a clawhammer I wouldn't be too understanding.

dun

Its my understanding that it was a maul, instead of a clawhammer. At least the news reported that it was a "wood splitting tool." I agree with you, Dun. It takes a special kind of person to beat a weenie dog to death with a maul. What a man!

It's the method that bothers me. The dog still needed to be removed from the neighborhood.

dun
 

MULDOON

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
673
Reaction score
0
Location
Where the Stars & Stripes ,, And the Eagle fli
Maybe the Vet was a liberal who didn't believe in guns , saw the dog killing his chickens and killed him.
What I was allways told, was if your dog killed someones chickens , or livestock. If the person notified the dogs owner , it was the owners responsibility to kill their own dog!!
Maybe that was if the dog, manged to make it back home.
Whether by bullet , maul , or claw hammer the problem was solved , No more dead chickens!!
I think it's sad that it showed up in court , a vet get's paid to put pets down! Yes I know, there's a difference, I guess I'm looking at the end result.
 

Campground Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
H.B. No. 151




AN ACT

relating to offenses involving dogs or coyotes that are a danger to
livestock and other animals.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter B, Chapter 822, Health and Safety
Code, is amended by amending the subchapter and by transferring
Section 822.033 to the subchapter, renumbering that section as
Section 822.013, and amending that section to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER B. DOGS AND COYOTES THAT ARE A DANGER TO ANIMALS
Sec. 822.011. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) "Dog or coyote" includes a crossbreed between a
dog and a coyote.
(2) "Livestock" includes exotic livestock as defined
by Section 161.001, Agriculture Code.
Sec. 822.012. CERTAIN DOGS AND COYOTES PROHIBITED FROM
RUNNING AT LARGE; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) The owner, keeper, or
person in control of a dog or coyote that the owner, keeper, or
person knows is accustomed to run, worry, or kill livestock,
domestic animals, or fowls [goats, sheep, or poultry] may not
permit the dog or coyote to run at large.
(b) A person who violates this section commits an offense.
An offense under this subsection is punishable by a fine of not more
than $100.
(c) Each time a dog or coyote runs at large in violation of
this section constitutes a separate offense.
Sec. 822.013 [822.033]. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK
[DOMESTIC] ANIMALS. (a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is
about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, [sheep, goats,
calves, or other] 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 [having] 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, [sheep,
goats, calves, or other] domestic animals, or fowls [is a public
nuisance. Any person] may detain or impound the dog or coyote and
return it to its [until the dog's] 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 [is notified] and all damage done by the dog or
coyote [has been determined and paid to the proper persons].
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or
coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, [sheep, goats,
calves, or other] domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog
or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority
[kill the dog. A sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, police
officer, magistrate, or county commissioner may enter the premises
of the owner of the dog and kill the dog if the owner fails to do
so].
(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.
SECTION 2. Sections 822.032 and 822.034, Health and Safety
Code, are repealed.
SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act to Section
822.011, Health and Safety Code, applies only to an offense
committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense
committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the
law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is
continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section,
an offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if
any element of the offense occurred before that date.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2003.

Vet didn't have a good lawyer.
Texas House Bill took effect 2003
Doesn't matter what he used keep your dog at home.
Best defense shoot straight
Dig Deep
And most of all keep your mouth shut.

Most of all I love all the cowards that dump the puppies and dogs to be someone elses problem.
 

Campground Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Current Edition
Texas Agriculture Archive
August 1, 2003

Governor signs
ag-related bills into law

It was a wild and wooly regular legislative session in Austin this year, with the redistricting fuss dominating headlines.

There were many bills passed, however, that have a direct effect on farmers and ranchers.

Governor Rick Perry signed the following bills which are effective immediately:

•HB 1152 by Rep. Robert Puente—Allows nonprofit water supply corporations to establish and enforce customer water conservation measures. (TFB Supported)

•HB 1370 by Rep. Vilma Luna—Requires a study and the implementation of a project to desalinate seawater. (TFB Supported)

•HB 1378 by Rep. Charlie Geren—Allows a landowner to request that the Texas Water Development Board not release to the public groundwater data collected on private property. (TFB Supported)

•HB 1875 by Rep. Miguel Wise—Protects funding for water infrastructure projects. (TFB Supported)

•HB 2660 by Rep. Robert Puente—Requires water conservation plans to include 5 and 10 year goals for conservation. (TFB Supported)

•SB 236 by Sen. Troy Fraser—Allows landowners to kill feral hogs on their own property without obtaining a hunting license. (TFB Supported)

•SB 1094 by Sen. Robert Duncan—Creates a task force to develop guidelines and legislation to promote water conservation. (TFB Supported)

•HB 1452 by Rep. Harvey Hilderbran—Prohibits the release of private information about agriculture producers who are licensed to practice predator control. (TFB Supported)

•SB 1639 by Sen. Todd Staples—Creates a commission to study instream flows of surface water. It prohibits permitting surface water for the purpose of protecting instream flows. (TFB Supported)

The governor signed the following bills which take effect Sept. 1:

•HB 1 by Rep. Talmadge Heflin—State budget. All agriculture programs received across the board cuts along with other agencies. (TFB Supported)

•HB 4 by Rep. Joe Nixon—Tort reform bill. Includes a provision that protects agriculture producers from being sued for trespass caused by dust or other particulate matter. (TFB Supported)

•HB 151 by Rep. David Farabee—Allows a landowner to prevent a dog or coyote from harassing livestock. (TFB Supported)

•HB 408 by Rep. Sid Miller—Limits the liability for landowners for certain uses of their land. (TFB Supported)

•HB 645 by Rep. Robert Puente—Prohibits homeowners' associations from adopting covenants that undermine water conservation. (TFB Supported)

•HB 803 by Rep. Charlie Geren—Protects water rights from condemnation and ensures adequate compensation to landowners for groundwater rights condemned. (TFB Supported)

•HB 1117 by Rep. Jim Keffer—Creates a process to determine the ownership of public roads maintained by a county. (TFB Supported)

•HB 1534 by Rep. Robby Cook—Removes the power of a groundwater conservation district to use eminent domain for purchasing, transporting, or distributing water. (TFB Supported)

•HB 1836 by Rep. Rick Hardcastle—Adds the term "horse" to all the definitions of livestock in Texas law. This change helps prevent animal rights groups from designating horses as companion animals. (TFB Supported)

•HB 1877 by Rep. Rick Hardcastle—Creates a rural physicians relief program to improve healthcare availability in rural areas. (TFB Supported)

•HB 3338 by Rep. Robert Puente—Requires water utilities to conduct a water conservation audit of their system to identify needed conservation. (TFB Supported)

•HB 3588 by Rep. Mike Krusee—Creates a statewide transportation plan including the development of the Trans Texas Corridor. Allows for the Department of Transportation to offer landowners participation or "royalty" payments in lieu of a one time lump-sum payment if the landowner's property lies in the proposed route of the corridor. (TFB Neutral)

•SB 10 by Sen. Kip Averitt—Allows for small businesses to form healthcare cooperatives in order to obtain healthcare insurance for their employees and families. (TFB Supported)

•SB 155 by Sen. Judith Zaffirini—Prohibits the use of motor vehicles in state-owned riverbeds. (TFB Supported)

•SB 854 by Sen. Frank Madla—Allows Texas Department of Agriculture to regulate the sale, distribution, or importation of noxious plants. (TFB Supported)

•SB 1053 by Sen. Robert Duncan—Provides more funding for water projects and allows agriculture non-point source abatement projects to receive state funding. (TFB Supported)

•SB 1828 by Sen. Kip Averitt—Makes changes to the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board. Adds two gubernatorial appointees to the board. The bill requires more emphasis be put on water savings of brush control projects. (TFB Opposed)

Gov. Perry vetoed the following bills:

•Line Item Veto in HB 1 by Rep. Talmadge Heflin—Governor vetoed the Texas Wildlife Damage Management Service. The Governor indicated that he will direct other agencies to provide these services or outsource those services to the private sector. (TFB Opposed this Veto)

•SB 315 by Sen. Chuy Hinojosa—This legislation would have allowed Del Mar Junior College to call for a vote to extend their taxing district. (TFB Supported the Veto)
 

certherfbeef

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
0
Location
OH
(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.

Maybe there was a step the vet forgot? I don't know. The dog should have been controlled by the owner, But next time the vet should use a gun, not a "wood splitting tool".
 

Campground Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
certherfbeef":3rqpn527 said:
(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.

Maybe there was a step the vet forgot? I don't know. The dog should have been controlled by the owner, But next time the vet should use a gun, not a "wood splitting tool".

The law does not say how you have to kill the dog. The way the law reads is the owner of the dog is liable for damages, I would sue and them chickens would be expensive.

I will still opt for shoot straight and dig deep
 

bwranch

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
Location
East Central MO
Simple equation:

Me + Dog + dead livestock = dead dog by whatever means is close at hand including guns, knives, pitchfork, shovel, splitting maul, etc.

We have too much government and too many lawyers, both of which add up to too many beauracrats with too little to do.
 

txag

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,712
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
here's an article:

Vet who bludgeoned dog convicted of animal cruelty

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — A veterinarian who beat his neighbor's miniature dachshund to death with a mallet after the dog got into his yard was convicted Tuesday of animal cruelty.

Mircea Volosen, 45, faces a maximum two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. He was convicted by a judge after waiving a jury trial.

Kevin Ball testified Monday that he apologized when his dachshund ran into Volosen's back yard last summer, then watched in disbelief as his neighbor bludgeoned the dog.

The veterinarian's wife, Natalia Volosen, said that four of the couple's chickens died from trauma of being chased by the 2-year-old dachshund. But a police officer testified that there were no dead chickens in Volosen's yard that day.

Prosecutor Walt Junker said Volosen "took the law into his own hands."

Ball has filed a civil lawsuit against Volosen, who has since moved from the neighborhood.

Volosen killed a neighborhood Labrador retriever in 2002, but police filed no charges because the dog had killed seven of Volosen's rabbits and one of his chickens.
 

monkeywerkz

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Location
Utah
In the part of Utah where I live, you have a right to kill the animal if it is even chasing your livestock (chickens, cows, horses, and whatever else you've got around the farm). We've actually double checked that with the animal control after having to shoot our neighboors dogs a few times.

I don't mind how the animal is killed. I'd rather see a dead dog than have him after the animals.

- Richard
 

Latest posts

Top