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 e
> nclosure 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
