DogsBite Blog ::

dog bite statistics

Thursday, January 10, 2008


Oklahoma State Legislator to Author Tougher Dog Laws

Wesselhoft Looks to Lillian's Law
Oklahoma - Despite two previous legislative setbacks, state Rep. Paul Wesselhoft said he would again author legislation to prevent vicious dog attacks. His previous bills -- written in 2006 and 2007 -- attempted to ban pit bull dogs, and would have allowed cities to outlaw dog breeds they considered a public health risk. Neither bill succeeded.

This year, the Moore Republican said, he plans to write a proposal which is "non-breed specific." He said, "This bill is modeled after similar legislation which passed in Texas. It passed their Legislature and was signed by the governor." Wesselhoft said his new proposal could make a dog's "first-bite" a felony, just as Lillian's Law does in Texas.
"If a dog gets off its property and if that dog attacks someone and if that attack is serious -- that is if a prudent person would seek medical help -- then my legislation calls for making that attack a felony offense with a mandatory 20 days in jail," he said.
Wesselhoft said a serious attack would include deep, penetrating wounds, torn muscles or a wound requiring sutures. He said, "My bill will make people hesitate when purchasing pit bulls because it would be a felony if the dog bit someone." Wesselhoft said such a law would dramatically reduce the state's pit bull population and reduce the number of attacks.

Related article:
09/22/08: Oklahoma: One State's Struggle with a Breed-Specific Prohibition

Labels:


posted by karen  |  permalink  |  3 comments  |iconemail  |iconsubscribe  |iconcomment rss 
« View Older Posts      View Newer Posts »

3 comments:

Anonymous Don't mess with Texas  |  1/10/2008 2:11 AM  |  Flag  
Who is this flippant creep? Or err, he must have meant to say: 10 YEARS in jail for a severe attack and 20 YEARS in jail for an attack that resulted in fatalities. This is the hardcore reality of Texan's "Lillian's Law."

Anonymous itsrosie  |  1/11/2008 10:41 AM  |  Flag  
I am a "pro-pit" person, I own a Staffie and an AmPit, but I do tend to lean toward extreme punishment for people who are irresponsible - when their dogs (of ANY BREED) attack and seriously injure someone or Heaven forbid actually kill someone, the owner should be held responsible. I believe that if people knew the punishment would be harsh they would think twice about owning dogs they cannot control, or worse, teaching them to be fighters/attackers.

When strict punishment for irresponsible owners of all breeds is established, the heat gets taken off the "vicous breeds" and place on the bad owner.

It seems to me to be a vialbe solution to banning a breed of dog for a few idiot owners.

Anonymous schultz  |  1/12/2008 6:41 PM  |  Flag  
i also lean towards extreme punishment of the owners. but dealing with the aftermath of a vicious dog attack should not be the only focus. we need to work towards prevention. not necessarily bans but mandatory spay/neuter and restrictions on owning these dogs. all pit experts will say, "these dogs are not for everyone" so let's start weeding these morons out of the dog owning pool.

Post a Comment »

archives: