Please read!!!!

[apbtmom76]

***PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSSPOST****



I know some of you have already received this, but I need to emphasize how critical it is to get people to this hearing. As you may know, we have had two dog-related fatalities this week. The other side will have A LOT OF PEOPLE there and it will be very emotional. In addition, we are up against the dog bite lawyers. They stand to make a lot of money off this bill. They will say that anyone against this bill is a) a dogfighter and b) making money off pit bulls.

There is a very real possibility that they will add BSL to this bill, since the Attorney General has declined to issue an opinion on BSL. Lawmakers had been hoping the AG would give the green light to BSL, meaning they would not have had to change state law. It is too late for them to introduce a new bill, but if they were going to amend one, this would be it.

You do not have to speak. You can sign a card saying AGAINST and it will go in the official record. Of course we need faxes and phone calls but it does not go into the official record like in-person signing of the card and testimony does.

Can you go? Can you forward this to your local Austin kennel clubs, trainers, etc. and ask them to go? Shelters and rescuers need to go too - people will be scared to adopt large breed dogs after this, and more large dogs will be dumped in shelters.

Please have anyone who can go contact me. Thank you.

-Laura
214-325-0015
[email protected]


------------------------------------------PERMISSION TO CROSS - POST--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This bill is anti-dog and especially anti large dog. Can you attend the hearing? Please let me know. If not, please call or fax NOW. ESPECIALLY if you live in the district of one of the members - if you do please say so when you call and write.


http://lsspbc.com/blog/2009/03/09/oppose-hb-1982-bsl-by-another-name/


COMMITTEE: House County Affairs

TIME & DATE: 2:00 PM or upon final adjourn./recess
Monday, April 06, 2009

PLACE: E2.016




HB 1982 Relating to the regulation of dangerous and vicious dogs; providing penalties.
OPPOSE: This bill is breed-specific legislation without being “BSL.”


To understand HB 1982, one needs to understand how a dog is declared dangerous under state law. Currently, a "dangerous" dog makes an unprovoked attack while at large, or while outside its enclosure commits acts that "cause a person to reasonably believe that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person" (Texas Heath and Safety Code Sec. 822.041). Under current state law it is already possible to declare a dog "dangerous" without the dog ever touching, much less seriously injuring, a person.

If a dog is declared dangerous, it is subject to enclosure, registration and insurance requirements. These requirements are so burdensome and expensive that most people surrender the dog. Texas has additional penalties, up to and including second and third degree felonies for the owner, when dogs bite and seriously injure people.

What is a "vicious" dog? As proposed under HB 1982, “vicious” means: “…because of the dog ’s physical nature and vicious propensity is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury, as that term is defined by Section 822.001, or death to human beings and constitutes a danger to human life or property…”

This is a broad definition. Any dog is physically capable of injuring a person -- he may not have the inclination to do so, but canine teeth are after all designed to tear meat. One has to ask if "or property" means that a dog may be declared vicious for being capable of eating a sofa?

HB 1982 would allow animal control to seize your dog from your home even if the dog is licensed, vaccinated, has never escaped, and has never bitten or scratched a person or other animal. If neighbors are able to have neighbors’ dogs seized for barking through the fence, animal control officers could be used as weapons in conflicts that have nothing to do with dogs.

A dog declared vicious would face almost certain euthanasia because few people insure a dog that has been declared vicious or dangerous, or afford to pay the impound fees to reclaim the dog.

In addition, HB 1982 prohibits dogs over 40 lbs. from being off-lead in cities over one million people. There are no exceptions for legal dog parks, hunting, competitions, or search and rescue dogs. Dallas and San Antonio, for example, have leash laws but also sanction off-leash dog parks. Dallas, San Antonio and Houston attract large national dog shows, which would take their revenue elsewhere because HB 1982 makes no exceptions for events, such as flyball and agility trials, which are by definition performed off-lead.

The bill goes even further than requiring all dogs over 40 lbs. to be on leashes at all times -- it requires them to be in a "secure enclosure." A "secure enclosure," under Texas state law, is an enclosure required for dangerous dogs.





CONTACT THE COUNTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOW

Talking points:

A new “vicious dog” definition in state law is not necessary. Many cities are already enacting their own dangerous dog laws that are more stringent than the state laws.
If neighbors are able to have neighbors’ dogs seized for looking and acting intimidating while in their own enclosures, animal control officers could be used as weapons in conflicts that have nothing to do with dogs.
Many large cities cannot keep up with dogs running at large, without adding calls about dogs that are not loose.
Under current law, a dog can be put down if it seriously injures a trespasser under the age of eight. HB 1982 seeks to raise the age to 15. Many crimes, even violent ones, are committed by teens under the age of 15, and a dog should not die for trying to protect his master and property.
The leash requirement is unnecessary, because most cities in Texas already have leash laws. City leash laws usually offer appropriate exemptions for working dogs and sanctioned competitions, while HB 1982 offers no exemptions. This would make it impossible for large cities to attract large dog sport events and the revenue they generate.
HB 1982 forbids dogs over 40 lbs. from going to legal off-lead dog parks, many of which were organized by large cities to give dogs proper outlets for exercise and socialization. A properly exercised and socialized dog is less likely to have behavior problems such as aggression.
Author: Trey Martinez Fischer, San Antonio
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist116/martinez-fischer.php
District Address
1910 Fredericksburg Road
San Antonio, TX 78201
(210) 737-7200
(210) 737-6700 Fax





COUNTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Clerk: Revlynn Lawson
Phone: (512) 463-0760




Rep. Garnet Coleman (chair)
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist147/coleman.php
Capitol Office: CAP GW.17
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0524 FAX: (512) 463-1260
District Address: 5445 Alameda, Suite 501
Houston, TX 77004
District Phone: (713) 520-5355




Rep. Geanie Morrison (Vice Chair)
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist30/morrison.php
Capitol Office: CAP GN.11
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0456 FAX: (512) 476-3933
District Address: 1501 East Mockingbird,, Suite 101
Victoria, TX 77903
District Phone: (361) 572-0196




Rep. Leo Berman
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist6/welcome.htm
Capitol Office: EXT E2.908
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0584 FAX (512) 463-3217
District Address: P.O. Box 6028
Tyler, TX 75711
District Phone: (903) 939-2400




Rep. Valinda Bolton
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist47/bolton.php
Capitol Office: EXT E2.716
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0652 FAX (512) 463-0565
District Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78701
District Phone: (512) 463-0652




Rep. Joaquin Castro
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist125/castro.php
Capitol Office: EXT E1.302
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0669 FAX (512) 463-5074
District Address: 6502 Bandera, Suite 106
San Antonio, TX 78238
District Phone: (210) 684-6896




Rep. John E. Davis
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist129/davis.php
Capitol Office: CAP 4S.4
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0734 FAX (512) 479-6955
District Address: 1350 NASA Parkway,, Suite 212
Houston, TX 77058
District Phone: (281) 333-1350




Rep. Marisa Marquez
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist77/marquez.php
Capitol Office: EXT E2. 704
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0638 FAX (512) 463-8908
District Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
District Phone:




Rep. Ralph Sheffield
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist55/sheffield.php
Capitol Office: EXT E1.422
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0630 FAX (512)322-9054
District Address: 3000 S. 31st Street, Suite 505
Temple, TX 76502
District Phone: (254) 774-9888




Rep. Wayne Smith
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist128/smith.php
Capitol Office: EXT E2.214
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0733 FAX (512) 463-1323
District Address: 909 Decker Drive,, Suite 104
Baytown, TX 77520
District Phone: (832) 556-2002

 

[MLR]

Excerted from the above post: "The leash requirement is unnecessary, because most cities in Texas already have leash laws. City leash laws usually offer appropriate exemptions for working dogs and sanctioned competitions, while HB 1982 offers no exemptions."

This is where the real problem is coming in. Without State backing, most of these municipal Texas ordinances don't have any teeth to be enforced. You have to remember that if it can't be backed up by state law most of these cases brought by cities aren't winnable in court. They are only playing on the recent tragadies(?) to divert attention away from the real reason for these Bills. If there isn't a state law to back them up, all these local ordinances on the books right now are illegal. So they're attempting to fix that. Most city's now have paid lobbists at the state capitals across the country. These lobbists push for what the cities want done on the State level. They will usually put enough extra garbage (words) in these kinds of Bills so they can pull it out and look like the good guys to the public and still pass what the cities wanted passed in the first place. It's a shell game at it's very finest. And very successful most of the time. Some one of you needs to get in touch with one of these Bills sponsers and find out what the bottom line is. I'm sure they don't have any intention of passing any of this the way it is currently written. It's also very important for as many Texas dog owners as possible to be at these public hearings.

 

[deladobies]

forwarded...

 

[Silent]

TX-RPOA E-News
From RPOA Texas Outreach and
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
"Animal welfare, not animal 'rights'
and, yes, there is a difference."
Permission granted to crosspost.
April 2, 2009
A big thank you to Zandra Anderson for a fantastic brief regarding HB 3180
prepared for Responsible Pet Owners Alliance and presented to the Committee
Members at the hearing yesterday. We'll have it on our website asap. Read
Zandra's alert below. Maps of the Capitol Complex with Visitors Parking,
and all floors of the Capitol Bldg are on our website under the Lobby Day
Link: www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
If you can't go, fire up the faxes and get on the
phone!_________________________________
From Zandra:
Subject: Dogs Declared Vicious in OWN YARD & Worse-HB 1982 Hearing Monday!
Here is a BAD bill that we need help DEFEATING!!! Your dog can be declared
VICIOUS contained in your own yard--READ ON because it only gets worse.
All dogs 40 pounds and over mandated to be on lead at all times and must be
in a secure enclosure meant for dogs declared dangerous--must have DANGEROUS
DOG sign on your fence even if your dog has done NOTHING if it is 40 pounds
or more.
Zandra Anderson -- PERMISSION TO CROSSPOST EVERYWHERE!
www.TexasDogLawyer.com
HB 1982 (Expanding dangerous dogs laws to include vicious dogs based on
physical nature and will allow dogs to be declared vicious even if in its
own yard)
Martinez Fischer (County Affairs)
House Committee Hearing: Monday, April 6, 2009
2:00 p.m. ; Capitol Building;
Room E2.016 (2nd level down in Capitol Extension)
Need people there in Austin!!!!!!!!!!!!! FAX & CALL now!!!!!
1. This bill expands the definition of dangerous dogs to include a category
of vicious dogs. A dog could be determined to be vicious based on the dog's
"physical nature" and "vicious propensity" and it being capable of causing
serious bodily injury or death. This determination could be made without
regard to the actual dog's temperament or history. So, if someone thinks
your dog looks scary, you are in the crosshairs of this proposed law.
2. The definition of a vicious dog would include one that without reasonable
provocation habitually acts in a way that the owner should know it is likely
to bite or attack. What does this mean--the dog goes to the fence and barks,
goes to the door and barks, looks out the window and barks? What this means
is totally left up to the imagination and makes this law ripe for abuse.
3. The definition of vicious dog would include one that commits unprovoked
acts in its enclosure that causes someone to reasonably believe that the dog
will attack and cause bodily injury to that person. That means your dog in
its OWN yard can be declared "vicious."
4. The definition of vicious would include one that acts in a highly
aggressive manner in its enclosure and appears to a reasonable person that
it is able to escape. That means that if someone even thinks your dog could
get out, your dog can be declared vicious even though it is NEVER gotten
out.
5. This bill would allow the court to destroy a dog that causes serious
bodily injury to a trespasser in its own enclosure if the trespasser is less
than 15 years of age. The law currently provides an exception for destroying
the dog if the trespasser was at least 8 years of age. This addresses a dog
in its own yard. Unfortunately, in today's world many felons are teenagers.
6. This bill would expand the felony dog bite bill and make the penalties
stronger. Currently, if someone's dog gets out and causes serious bodily
injury or death, the owner can be charged with a third degree felony for
serious bodily injury and a second degree felony if it is death. This bill
would make it a second
degree felony if the victim of the attack causing serious bodily injury was
under 15 or over 65. This felony bill is already strong enough. A 2nd degree
felony can put someone in prison for up to 20 years and a 3rd degree felony
can put someone in prison for up to 10 years.
7. This bill would add a new law that requires that an owner of a dog that
weighs 40 or more pounds has to be on a leash in the immediate control of a
person, or in a residence, or in a secure enclosure in cities with a
population of more than 1 million. A secure enclosure is one that is
required for dangerous dogs. So, essentially, all dogs 40 pounds or more are
treated like they are already dangerous in terms of the enclosure that is
required regardless that they have NEVER done anything.
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
of handler), 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 F AX: (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
Rep. 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.ph p
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
RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
$15 Annual dues (January - December)
To subscribe or unsubscribe, e-mail [email protected].

 

[MLR]

Another thing several somebodies ought to be pointing out when you go to speak on these bills is what the passing of them will do to the pet industry of your state. What I'm talking about here is exactly how many people will be out of jobs if any of this goes through. How many pet stores are there in Texas, how many feed and grain stores and outlets, how many dog groomers are there, how many other dog/cat/pet service related businesses will be affected by this. How many pet food manufacturing plants will this close down or at the very least slow down production at? Just some thoughts on agruments which need to be raised. Money talks to legislators.

 

[deladobies]

Do they not read these bills and realize how rediculous (?) they sound

 

[Silent]

Time to vote the goverment off the island...

 

[apbtmom76]

lmaooo Silent, is exactly what I think and Dela n othey don't read them they just want to know if people support them. grrrrr hate politicians.


Thank you Mary Lou, both of your posts are AWESOME, please everyone read and come to the capitol on the 8th.

 

[MyBuddy]

Excerpt from apbtmom: They stand to make a lot of money off this bill. They will say that anyone against this bill is a) a dogfighter and b) making money off pit bulls.

That statement alone leaves me speechless! My god.......

 

[apbtmom76]

Yes My Buddy and I would be considered both to these people. This just makes me sick to think they can do this. I thought this was America, Land of the Free. ughhhhhh

 

[MyBuddy]

Yes My Buddy and I would be considered both to these people. This just makes me sick to think they can do this. I thought this was America, Land of the Free. ughhhhhh

Just show 'em your certificates!!!!!!! I can't believe they really think those are the only two things someone has a Pit Bull for?? :hairpull:

 

[apbtmom76]

HEHe I had already thought of that. I'm gonna see if I can take Penny with me.