UNDER TEXAS LAW, HEALTHY AND SAFETY CODE TITLE 10 CHAPTER 822.

003(F)(4), MY DOG, CHE, MAY NOT BE DESTROYED AS HE WAS ACTING WITHIN REASON TO DEFEND A PERCEIVED ASSAULT. May it please the Court:

We are here today to assess whether my dog, Che, deserves a second chance at life or whether death is the only option for a well-trained, well-mannered dog that made a mistake when confronted with overwhelming circumstances. I, Carlina Muglia, am a professional dog trainer and legal tenant at 1700 Rabb Road, Austin, Texas 78704. I have owned Che for three years. On Saturday, January 8, 2011, at approximately 10:00 in the morning, I was sitting in my house with Che. My landlord, Ms. Tamara Carlisle, four boys, and two dogs ventured to the backyard. Upon seeing that Ms. Carlisle and the boys intended to use the zipline that is in the backyard, I instructed Che to assume a down, stay position. Thus, he was lying down on the floor by the side of my chair. Shortly afterwards, I was preparing to leave (with Che) for a training appointment. Che remained in the aforementioned position as I gathered my belongings and walked to the door, which faces away from the backyard. Che's leash was in my car, but as he wears a collar with a handle, my intention was to lead him to the car by the handle. I instructed Che to come to me at the door and sit, stay. As I opened the door, he heard yelling and dogs barking. His curiosity peaked and he broke his command. As I followed in pursuit of Che to restrain him, I saw Tamara standing with her arms raised in the air, catching the Plaintiff (a guest), who was riding the zipline at the time, to help him out of the harness. Within the few seconds it took me to catch up, Che had already bitten the Plaintiff and released him. I grabbed Che by his collar handle and turned him away from the scene without any difficulty. He readily complied without displaying

any resistance or attempt to re-engage with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was secured in the harness when Che bit him. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff sustained injury that necessitated medical treatment. The incident at hand occurred on the property where I live property that I use freely in the manner stated in my lease. Given my expertise and Ches disposition, Ms. Carlisle never felt the need to establish a protocol for when she and her children were in the yard. A reasonable person could infer that Che was acting according to and under the exact circumstance as dictated by Texas Healthy and Safety Code Title 10 Chapter 822.003(f)(4): The court may not order the dog destroyed if the court finds that the dog caused the serious bodily injury to a person by . . . biting. . . and the dog was defending a person from an assault or person's property from damage or theft by the injured person. Che is a dog. Upon initial instinct, he did not realize the object of his action was a person, Upon such a realization he released his grip. Anyone with a dog would recognize this as a strong indication of substantial training and enduring obedience. The training that I have done with Che over the past three years, stands as proof that Che is of sound temperament, was acting in a manner that was defensive, and was unable to identify the suspended object as a child. Upon adopting Che, I immediately began working with a trainer to put him through a recognized temperament assessment called the Canine Good Citizen certification (CGC). The American Kennel Club (AKC) standardizes this program. Che proved to be a very trainable dog. The battery of tests required for the certification includes:

Test 1: Accepting a friendly stranger

This test demonstrates that the dog will allow a friendly stranger to approach it and speak to the handler in a natural, everyday situation. The evaluator walks up to the dog and handler and greets

the handler in a friendly manner, ignoring the dog. The evaluator and handler shake hands and exchange pleasantries. The dog must show no sign of resentment or shyness, and must not break position or try to go to the evaluator. Che is always accepting of friendly strangers.

Test 2: Sitting politely for petting

This test demonstrates that the dog will allow a friendly stranger to touch it while it is out with its handler. With the dog sitting at the handler's side, to begin the exercise, the evaluator pets the dog on the head and body. The handler may talk to his or her dog throughout the exercise. The dog may stand in place as it is petted. The dog must not show shyness or resentment. Che sits politely and always allows himself to be petted.

Test 3: Appearance and grooming

This practical test demonstrates that the dog will welcome being groomed and examined and will permit someone, such as a veterinarian, groomer or friend of the owner, to do so. It also demonstrates the owner's care, concern and sense of responsibility. The evaluator inspects the dog to determine if it is clean and groomed. The dog must appear to be in healthy condition (i.e., proper weight, clean, healthy and alert). The handler should supply the comb or brush commonly used on the dog. The evaluator then softly combs or brushes the dog, and in a natural manner, lightly examines the ears and gently picks up each front foot. It is not necessary for the dog to hold a specific position during the examination, and the handler may talk to the dog, praise it and give encouragement throughout. Che is always willing to be groomed and does not take issue with veterinarians.

Test 4: Out for a walk (walking on a loose lead)

This test demonstrates that the handler is in control of the dog. The dog may be on either side of the handler. The dog's position should leave no doubt that the dog is attentive to the handler and is responding to the handler's movements and changes of direction. The dog need not be perfectly aligned with the handler and need not sit when the handler stops. The evaluator may use a pre-plotted course or may direct the handler/dog team by issuing instructions or commands. In either case, there should be a right turn, left turn, and an about turn with at least one stop in between and another at the end. The handler may talk to the dog along the way, praise the dog, or give commands in a normal tone of voice. The handler may sit the dog at the halts if desired. Che is completely obedient on walks and does not pull at his leash.

Test 5: Walking through a crowd

This test demonstrates that the dog can move about politely in pedestrian traffic and is under control in public places. The dog and handler walk around and pass close to several people (at least three). The dog may show some interest in the strangers but should continue to walk with the handler, without evidence of over-exuberance, shyness or resentment. The handler may talk to the dog and encourage or praise the dog throughout the test. The dog should not jump on people in the crowd or strain on the leash. Che always displays good behavior in crowds and is friendly.

Test 6: Sit and down on command and Staying in place

This test demonstrates that the dog has training, will respond to the handler's commands to sit and down and will remain in the place commanded by the handler (sit or down position, whichever the handler prefers). The dog must do sit AND down on command, then the owner

chooses the position for leaving the dog in the stay. Prior to this test, the dog's leash is replaced with a line 20 feet long. The handler may take a reasonable amount of time and use more than one command to get the dog to sit and then down. The evaluator must determine if the dog has responded to the handler's commands. The handler may not force the dog into position but may touch the dog to offer gentle guidance. When instructed by the evaluator, the handler tells the dog to stay and walks forward the length of the line, turns and returns to the dog at a natural pace. The dog must remain in the place in which it was left (it may change position) until the evaluator instructs the handler to release the dog. The dog may be released from the front or the side. Che consistently follows my command in this regard.

Test 7: Coming when called

This test demonstrates that the dog will come when called by the handler. The handler will walk 10 feet from the dog, turn to face the dog, and call the dog. The handler may use encouragement to get the dog to come. Handlers may choose to tell dogs to "stay" or "wait" or they may simply walk away, giving no instructions to the dog. Except on the very rare occasion where his curiosity prevails for a moment, Che reverts to me when I call his name.

Test 8: Reaction to another dog

This test demonstrates that the dog can behave politely around other dogs. Two handlers and their dogs approach each other from a distance of about 20 feet, stop, shake hands and exchange pleasantries, and continue on for about 10 feet. The dogs should show no more than casual interest in each other. Neither dog should go to the other dog or its handler. Che is neither hostile to nor does he overwhelm friendly dogs.

Test 9: Reaction to distraction

This test demonstrates that the dog is confident at all times when faced with common distracting situations. The evaluator will select and present two distractions. Examples of distractions include dropping a chair, rolling a crate dolly past the dog, having a jogger run in front of the dog, or dropping a crutch or cane. The dog may express natural interest and curiosity and/or may appear slightly startled but should not panic, try to run away, show aggressiveness, or bark. The handler may talk to the dog and encourage or praise it throughout the exercise. Even in this uncommon instance (the zipline has only been used once since I have been living at this address and Che has never seen it being used), Che reacted in an investigatory fashion and did not display bark. His sense of protection was triggered upon seeing a foreign element.

Test 10: Supervised separation

This test demonstrates that a dog can be left with a trusted person, if necessary, and will maintain training and good manners. Evaluators are encouraged to say something like, "Would you like me to watch your dog?" and then take hold of the dog's leash. The owner will go out of sight for three minutes. The dog does not have to stay in position but should not continually bark, whine, or pace unnecessarily, or show anything stronger than mild agitation or nervousness. Evaluators may talk to the dog but should not engage in excessive talking, petting, or management attempts (e.g, "there, there, it's alright"). I regularly am able to leave Che with trusted friends and family members.

Though Che passed his training with great success and earned his certification as a good canine, his training did not end with the AKC course. As a dog trainer myself, I invoked proved

positive-training methods, and regularly exposed Che to new and exciting situations, with an incredible variety of people and always in a controlled manner. As an example of his extremely good conduct and sound temperament, Che is permitted to serve as my in-cabin Emotional Support Animal (ESA) for when I fly.

Since I have lived at this residence, the zipline has only been used once in a party scenario. I was informed of the intended use of the zipline in advance and made arrangements for Che to be boarded elsewhere. Che has encountered crowds consisting of people of all ages in high-excitement scenarios such as parades and parks and remains calm in those situations. However, he has never encountered moving objects dangling, suspended in his immediate environment or elsewhere. Even so, until he became alarmed by the fervent yelling and barking, Che maintained his passive demeanor that Saturday morning.

As a single woman, I derive comfort and safety from knowing that Che is capable of protecting me should a dangerous situation arise. In that vein, because he is a loving and friendly dog, he extends that shield to all others that share our environment. As I have been living alongside Ms. Carlisle and her family, Che has also begun to watch over them. On January 8th, Ms. Carlisle was standing with her arms raised to catch Plaintiff and help him out of the harness while children were running around and yelling, and two other dogs were also running around barking. Che perceived Ms. Carlisles position in relation to an unidentifiable object as an assault upon her and acted in her defense.

Due to the systematic and careful way I have raised and trained Che it is clear that he is not an aggressive or dangerous dog in any regard. Ches actions were merely in defense of what he perceived to be a direct threat to Ms. Carlisle a person he considers to be part of his family.

He has an exemplary record of good, friendly and safe behavior in equally exciting situations that differ only in that he recognized everyone involved as being a human and non-threatening. Though unfortunate, the severity of the Plaintiffs injury has as much to do with gravity and the momentum of Plaintiffs movement in the harness as it does the force applied by Che. Further, given Ches size and strength, it is clear that he exhibited control and inhibited his bite. This, accompanied with his immediate release and lack of resistance, is a demonstration of how he learned immediately from his mistake and acted to correct it as best a dog can.

Che has a throng of avid supporters who, upon hearing of this regrettable incident, have written passionate testimonies to ensure his sociable and loving demeanor. The Texas provision laid forth as defense is designed to save good dogs that find themselves in unfortunate situations like this one. Che was acting defensively to protect Ms. Carlisle from a perceived threat to her. The law is intended to protect the public from vicious dogs who cannot control their emotions or actions. Che could not be further from this characterization. He has lived an exceptional life, and is as close to me as a family member. Please acknowledge his innocence and do not subject him to unjust and unwarranted punishment.