A Washington County man is appealing the ruling that he must euthanize four dogs believed responsible for a vicious attack on an 86-year old woman who was feeding the animals.
Precinct-2 Justice of the Peace Douglas Cone ruled that four of the dogs be put to sleep, following a lengthy hearing Friday in the Washington County Courthouse.
The owner of the dogs, Kelly Hyman has appealed the ruling. That appeal will be heard in Washington County Court at Law.
Judge Cone ruled that evidence shows four of Hyman’s six dogs were responsible for the attack. He ruled that there’s no evidence the other two dogs participated and they will not have to be put down.
According to the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, the victim was feeding Hyman’s dogs at his home in the 9000 block of Dairy Farm Road, just east of FM-1155, north of Chappell Hill.
According to Chief Deputy Jay Petrash, the woman was feeding six dogs of different breeds when she apparently slipped and fell and was attacked by the dogs.
A neighbor heard the commotion and rushed to the woman’s aid—shooting one of the dogs which scared off the others.
The victim was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Bryan, where she underwent extensive surgery for what Petrash says are severe injuries.
Cone’s ruling gave Hyman 15 days to comply by euthanizing the animals.
I can’t blame the local media for not reporting all the details of the attack. I appreciate it when the media draws the line and leaves out information that might be personal to a person involved in the story.
I would like to say that I was disappointed in the local media coverage. They had articles but they were not informative enough for people to really understand the gravity of this situation and the horrible results the attack had on this poor woman. Maybe if it were a child it would’ve gotten better and more complete coverage???? I think we have to be very careful about putting animal rights above those of any person, young or old, etc.. I am happy with the decision of the judge, and the thought of people appealing the decision to save these dogs is unimaginable to me. I for one would not have to be told to euthanize my animals, it is disappointing that they couldn’t come to this conclusion on their own in the process wasting peoples time and city resources as well as tax dollars.
As a resident of Chappell Hill I am very aware of the circumstances of this case. These animals are not out in the country but in a neighborhood where children play. Three children live next to these dogs. These dogs have come after some of the neighbor children who had to run and climb on top of high places to escape. The decision reached in this matter was absolutely the right one. It is a miracle this elderly woman survived, perhaps a child wouldn’t have. The judge in this case would have been remiss in his duty to the residents of this community to have ruled any other way. I am a pet owner and love my dogs but in a situation like this I wouldn’t need a judge to tell me the right thing to do.
There is a history of these dogs being aggressive to other people & children in the neighborhood. I do know people in this neighborhood. The woman attacked came VERY close to dying, and would have, were it not for the intervention of the good samaritan. Putting the lives and safety of known vicious dogs before people is absurdly wrong. The JP made the correct ruling. The dogs need to be humanely euthanized. Dogs such as this will always be unpredictable and cannot be rehabilitated. Election year or not…
Even though this was a first incident. The dog attack upon this 85 year old woman was vicious. The dogs had been mauling her for about 10 minutes before help arrived. She sustained serious bodily injury, meaning pieces of muscle were torn from her body. She was bitten all over the back of her head, back, arms and legs. There is probably not a 2 or 3″ square of her leg that did not sustain bites, all now with stitches. She lost over 50% of her right ear, four huge chunks of muscle from her legs, some so big they had to be filled with sponges, not to mention large amounts of blood. The dogs stripped her of all her clothes and shoes with the exception of her underwear. This is week three and she is still in the hospital. The paper has not reported to you the extent of her injuries or the types of dogs involved. It will be months before she will be rehabilitated and maybe she will walk again. But this is an 85 year old woman people, who is missing large amounts of muscle for her legs. Being off her feet, she is losing more muscle mass not being able to walk. I love dogs too, and almost all of my dogs are rescues, but if one even bit my 85 year old relative, much less mauled her near to death (she would have died had help not arrived) I would have to make the right decision as a dog owner to put the dog down. After all, that is part of being a dog owner too, making the hard choices.
These dogs have a known history of chasing people in the neighborhood and trying to bite/attack. The judge was completely correct in ruling to have them put down. They should not be allowed out to attack other people again.
Dogs that attack humans will continue to do so. In the old days a dog that bit/attacked a human was shot. Cruel as it seems, this old practice bred out the bad bloodline of dogs with an aggressive nature. This practice is not as prevalent as it was, unfortunately the opposite is true. People are raising dogs for the purpose of attacking. Why allow a dog to live that has harmed a person only to allow it to repeat it’s offence again.
If this is an isolated incident, and the dogs have not hurt nor harmed any other person or animal, why not designate them as viscous and save them? Not sure how the designation addresses having the dogs on the property and if they can be taken off the property, but if it would save them, then why not? Is there politics involved in this? This is an election year!!
I love, love, love our three dogs, and could not bare the idea of putting one down. BUT if one or all of our dogs attacked someone, we would not be going to court to determine whether or not they needed to be “put down.” WE would have had them destroyed immediately! PEOPLE come first not dogs.
As for if there is politics involved, sounds to me like the judge did the right and just thing! The dogs who viscously attacked this woman (who is still in the hospital) did (or do) live in a sub-division (Chappell Hills). I wouldn’t want to live next door or even in the same sub-division as these horrible animals. Shouldn’t the children of this sub-division have the right to play outside, ride there bikes and visit friends without fear of being attacked by neighboring vicious dogs?
Well said “Dog Lover”. You took the words right out of my mouth.