[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Dogs Declared Viscious in OWN YARD & Worse-HB 1982 Hearing Monday!

  • From: Bokenkampgsd1@xxxxxxx
  • To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, WildfireAcres1@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:22:59 EDT

 
 
 
This one is really crazy....we need help folks for people to  call in on this!
Molly
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 worseâ?¦  

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_ (http://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 dogâ??s â??physical natureâ?? and â??vicious propensityâ?? and it being  
capable of 
causing serious bodily injury or death. This determination  could be made 
without regard to the actual dogâ??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=2 0without 
 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.      &n  bsp;  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, it  today's world many felons 
are 
teenagers.
6.          This bill would expand the felony dog bite bill and make the  
penalties stronger. Currently, if someoneâ??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  â??
physical nature.â?? 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 dogâ??s actual temperament or  history.
2.          This bill would allow for a dog to be declared vicious based on  
things it allegedly does in i ts 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 alr eady 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,20but 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 30â?? 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. 
 
Billâ??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_ 
(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_ 
(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_ 
(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_ 
(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_ 
(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_ 
(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_ 
(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_ 
(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_ 
(http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist128/smith.php) 
Capitol  Phone: (512) 463-0733    FAX  (512)  463-1323





Molly


Trillia German Shepherds  since 1972 ph 409-287-3940
Member GSDCA, GSDCC, GSDC of Beaumont  (recording secretary), Life member CKC
"The greatest discovery of any  generation is that a human being
can alter his life by altering his  attitude"-William  James
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)

============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2008.  All material remains the property of the original 
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind 
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the 
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY 
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS 
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY 
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE 
PROSECUTED. 

For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx

VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================

Other related posts:

  • » [ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Dogs Declared Viscious in OWN YARD & Worse-HB 1982 Hearing Monday! - Bokenkampgsd1