[ SHOWGSD-L ] Fwd: TX: HB 1982 Hearing Monday, declares dog vicious in own yard & worse
- From: Scharo777@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:05:36 EDT
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 rpoa@xxxxxxxxxx
____________________________________
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? _Make dinner for $10 or less_
(http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) .
**************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 ] Fwd: TX: HB 1982 Hearing Monday, declares dog vicious in own yard & worse - Scharo777
