NEW Dangerous DOG LAW- needs attention!

[uglydog]

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY FOR MORE INFO GO TO http://thenewtdha.com/smf1.5/index.php?topic=635.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB 1982 comes up 4-6-09

Why this Bill should be OPPOSED:
>
>
>
> 1. This bill would allow for declaring a
> dog vicious based on its “physical nature.” That is an
> attempt to target breeds of dogs and is breed specific
> legislation by a different name. This determination could be
> made with no regard for the dog’s actual temperament or
> history.
>
> 2. This bill would allow for a dog to be
> declared vicious based on things it allegedly does in its
> own enclosure without the dog ever getting out. This law would
> punish people who contain their dogs in an enclosure and
> yet, this is exactly what we want them to do instead of
> letting the dogs run loose.
>
> 3. The bill would allow the unfair
> targeting of dogs that have not done anything other that
> perhaps bark at the fence to be declared vicious which
> subjects the owner to the same requirement as owners of
> dangerous dogs that have bitten someone and caused injury.
>
> 4. Dangerous dog cases are often more about
> the relationships of neighbors than about dogs. This bill
> would allow a neighbor to say he or she is fearful that a
> fenced dog might get out or that it might cause them injury
> for a dog that is contained within an enclosure. This is a
> subjective standard that is fraught with possibility for
> unfairness.
>
> 5. Requiring that owners of dogs weighing
> 40 pounds or more to have a secure enclosure for their pets
> is tantamount to saying that all such dogs are dangerous and
> should be treated as if they have been declared dangerous
> without them ever doing anything. "Secure
> enclosures" by state law are those for dogs already
> declared dangerous. This would mean that these dog owners
> would have to construct a "secure enclosure" for
> dogs that have never done one thing. Here is what a
> "secure enclosure" means that all owners of dogs
> 40 pounds and over would have to comply with:
>
>
> (4) "Secure enclosure" means a fenced area or
> structure that is:
>
> (A) locked;
>
> (B) capable of preventing the entry of the general
> public, including children;
>
> (C) capable of preventing the escape or release of a
> dog;
>
> (D) clearly marked as containing a dangerous dog; and
>
> (E) in conformance with the requirements for enclosures
> established by the local animal control authority.
>
>
> So, if you have to put a sign saying DANGEROUS DOG on your
> fence for your dog despite that it has done NOTHING. AND,
> you have to comply with local requirements for "secure
> enclosures." Some local requirements include enclosures
> with tops, concrete flooring, and size requirements. AGAIN,
> I know this sounds crazy, but this is for ALL dogs weighing
> 40 pounds or more. This law would be unfairly enforced
> against dogs like American Pit Bull Terriers, Rotties,
> Akitas, German Shepherd Dogs, Dobies, Huskies, Malamutes,
> Mastiffs, Chow-Chows, etc.
> 6. Requiring 40 pound dogs or over to
> always be on a leash in the immediate control of a person,
> in a residence or in a secure enclosure, prevents those dogs
> from ever going to a dog park or participating in events
> that are off lead or allow the dog to be separate from the
> handler which include tracking (dogs are on leads up to
> 30’ in length), search & rescue efforts (dogs on long
> leads and move ahead of20handler), herding, hunting, and
> being used as working dogs and police dogs. Most dogs used
> in all of these activities are over 40 pounds.
> 7. This bill would prohibit hunters from
> using a dog that is 40 pounds or over. Hunting dogs are
> typically over 40 pounds and include all sorts of dogs.
> 8. This bill is way too restrictive and
> vague and needs to be defeated in its entirety. Our laws are
> strong enough. Current law provides that if your dog makes
> an unprovoked act while outside it enclosure that someone
> says put them in fear of being injured, your dog can already
> be declared dangerous even if it did not bite, scratch or
> even touch someone. It is a subjective standard.
>
>
>
> FAX & CALL. Email is not a good way to communicate and
> some of them are blocking it now.
>
>
>
> Be sure to put: OPPOSED TO HB 1982 or VOTE NO ON HB 1982
> in bold, large letters as your subject title.
>
>
>
> Bill’s Author: Trey Martinez Fischer, San Antonio
> (512) 463-0616
> (512) 463-4873 Fax
>
>
> COUNTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
>
> Clerk: Revlynn Lawson
> Phone: (512) 463-0760
>
> The Capitol Address for ALL Representatives:
>
> PO Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768
>
> Rep. Garnet Coleman (chair)
> http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist147/coleman.php
> Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0524 FAX: (512) 463-1260
> Rep. Geanie Morrison (Vice Chair)
> http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist30/morrison.php
> Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0456 FAX: (512) 476-3933
> 0ARep. Leo Berman
> http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist6/welcome.htm
> Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0584 FAX (512) 463-3217
> Rep. Valinda Bolton
> http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist47/bolton.php
> Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0652 FAX (512) 463-0565
> Rep. Joaquin Castro
> http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist125/castro.php
> Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0669 FAX (512) 463-5074
> Rep. John E. Davis
> http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist129/davis.php
> Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0734 FAX (512) 479-6955
> Rep. Marisa Marquez
> http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist77/marquez.php
> Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0638 FAX (512) 463-8908
> Rep. Ralph Sheffield
> http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist55/sheffield.php
> Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0630 FAX (512)322-9054
> Rep. Wayne Smith
> http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist128/smith.php
> Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0733 FAX (512) 463-1323

 

[lil'chickies]

Is this for all of Texas?? I don't believe dogs should be labeled, it's all in how they are raised. I don't think my 95 lb. lab is going to hurt anyone, but under this bill, he would be labeled as dangerous. I also have GSD, but I am not raising her to be vicious. This is completely nuts on how the government is trying to control and restrict it's people. We no longer live in a democracy, but a dictatorship. Very sad.

 

[WoodlandWoman]

I wish they'd come up with a bill to contain ignorant or corrupt politicians in enclosures like that. I'd vote for that!

 

[B. Saffles Farms]

Quote:

its got my vote too.

 

[uglydog]

Yes it is all Texas, and I agree to much goverment! I am just sick with new laws being made when the old ones are not even enforced.

Theya re also working on a law to have to be licensed breeder if you have more han 11 intact females! labeled "puppy Mill bill"

I am just sick of it! I raise dogs, but not for profit. I don't breed a dog until it is old enough to be a"proven " dog worthy of passing along its genetics, this may 2 years of age or not until 6 years of age, but I consider myself a responsible dog owner. I train, show and compete, and provide services to others with my working dogs.
I Have alot of knowledge in canine medicine and procedure, and am ticked off that people that own Obese couch potatoes dogs that are treated like humans with as much rights as a human will be "supervising" how many dogs I can own, how I take care of my animals. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand for animals to be neglected, abused or irresponsible breeding & ownership, but I also can't stand for Animal Rights activist that believe that animals life should be equal to a human life.

The people who push for animal rights will adventually push so hard, there won't be animals left to worship other than in a zoo! or owned by the rich in completely enclosed climate controlled, concrete floor museum for the special ones.

 

[lil'chickies]

I told hubby I should march my 95 lb lab Icon down there and show them that it's not right to put such a terrible label on a dog because of it's weight without any evidence. Do you think they'd let me in the door?? He is seriously just a big beautiful baby that doesn't have an agressive bone in his big body.

 

[Goattalker]

In general I am opposed to all new regulations. I just have a question here, why would any responsible dog owner not be for something that would require ALL dog owners to keep their dogs at home? 40lbs or not, if I want a dog like the neighbors have I'll buy one, they don't have to share.

 

[morelcabin]

Well, on the positive side, it would keep my neighbors dogs from coming on my property...my dog could be contained easily enough. It is also allowing those who are terrified of dogs more freedom...right now my kids can't even bike down the road without being chased by one dog or another.
I think all in all, this is one of the better regulations that have come about in recent years. They are going to make dog owners responsible, period. Not a bad idea

 

[lil'chickies]

I don't have a problem with leash laws in public. I have a problem labeling non aggressive dogs as dangerous based only on how much they weigh. My dogs have 2 acres fenced in here to run, I don't want to have to cement it, or build a little kennel, or have it covered on top just because they weigh a certain amount. I've known chihuahuas that were more aggressive than my lab. I can't approve of this for those reasons. What about when we take them to the river with us? We often take weekend trips and take them out in the boats with us. Do I have to have them on a leash to play in the water? Some folks include their dogs as part of their families and take them with them. I am responsible for my dogs as every owner should be.

 

[farmgirlie1031]

That sounds like a very badly written bill. By that my Bernese Mountain Dog and Golden Retriever will be considered dangourous. So will my mutt. They are all over 40 lbs. Yes, there needs to be something done about the real dangourous dogs but there should be no breed or weight discrimination.