NEW Dangerous DOG LAW- needs attention!

[Goattalker]

Good point. How then should it be resolved? My guess is the vicious dog thing is an attempt to hit the bad dog owners in the face, and make them realize their dog can be distroyed if they aren't more responsible.

 

[lil'chickies]

The only problem with making a point to them is those of us without vicious dogs are going to have to pay a price as well. I don't know how to solve the problem, but this bill is not the answer.

 

[Goattalker]

Do you know if your county has any teeth in its dog ordinances? I know some counties don't have anything about dogs, and others are regulated to death.

 

[lil'chickies]

There aren't even leash laws. I know in town it is a real problem and I do wish there was at least a leash law, but setting a law based on weight or breed is not right. I for one use a leash on my dogs when we leave the property. On our property though, I shouldn't be ordered to build a kennel when my animals are trained and contained. I do wish there was a leash law though.

 

[Xtina]

I oppose breed-specific legislation strongly. But days when I get hot about this issue, I fantasize about how we could end problems such as loose dogs killing animals and people, dogs being bred at puppy mills, overcrowded humane societies having to euthanize perfectly good dogs, and I've come up with a daydream solution that will never happen. I know that libertarians would oppose it for sure, because it involves laws, albeit laws that were designed to prevent breed-specific legislation.

My daydream is to require people who want to own dogs to get a license. You should have to take a written test and a field test just like you do to drive a car. You'd have to answer questions such as, "Do you agree that you must neuter your pet-quality dog?" "Do you know that you must keep your dog on leash?" "Do you agree to put your dog in obedience classes as a puppy?" The field test would involve a home visit making sure that dogs have secure fencing to protect them from children who poke and prod or from cars that would hit them. And it would involve the canine good citizenship test. I'm sorry, but dog owners must be able to train their dogs to a standard of good behavior. If they can't, it is a dog with a bad disposition or a dog that has been ruined by bad training. Not saying I would euthanize those dogs, but they should go to new owners who can get better results from them.

And breeding would be allowed, but also under licensed and controlled conditions. No more dogs with hip dysplasia being bred. No more dogs being overbred to the point of ill health. And certainly, no more new mutts that are much more likely to be euthanized. Don't get me wrong, I own two mutts, but I do that because I want to be part of the solution. Yes, they're great dogs, but I strongly believe that breeding should be controlled.

Anyway, I don't live in Texas and I hope you guys can overturn this bill. Other than my solution, I can't think of a good way to fix the problems that occur with vicious dogs that aren't properly secured.

 

[Goattalker]

Ahhh, then your area is like one where a friend of mine lives, same thing, dogs run lose, and the livestock owner needs to guard their livestock 24/7 to protect them from lose dogs.

I think in this instance what they are trying to do is require a fence, if people can't afford a fence then they need a pen. I agree calling a dog vicious when it is not, is wrong. I didn't read anything about the dog being required to live in it 24/7/365, only that it have one? I'm not sure how they can fix the lose dog thing with their current statutes.

 

[sandypaws]

i have not read all the resopnses...i know this is a heated subject..
been thinking about it all night..

no, i dont belive in breed bans.. BUT numbers dont lie.. what percentage of ROTTS bite people or cause problems, over a coonhound??? (just example breeds)
AND.. if the majority of the people that owned these breeds were RESPONSIBLE OWNERS to begin with, these laws would not even be on the books....

 

[farmgirlie1031]

But this is not a breed ban. It is a ban over any dog over 40 lbs. Not at all fair.

 

[lil'chickies]

It's all in how they are raised.

 

[FlightsofFancy]

My concern is for LGDs and my personal protection dog who I have put a great deal of time and money into training. I would not want someone to "label" them vicious because they bark furiously at the fence or the door. My Schutzen dog is better trained than 95% of the dogs I know. Great with children and off leash....always under control. However, they are physically intimidating and dangerous to anyone who would threaten my family or herd.
Could they be labeled "dangerous" by appearence only? Would I have to pay fees and register them?

I support "one wrong bite and you are out". I would have no problem euthanizing my own pet if it bit unsolicited.
I support the current law dealing with behavior not appearance.
I support terrible penalties for irresponsible pet ownership!
I support the local leash laws.
I support people getting involved in their community and calling animal control. They need our help to do their job.

This amendment is too vague and will not change the problem.