Calling all Texans (I know we have several)

[Judi W]

Action Alert!
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
Texas HB 1096 BSL
Please cross post and forward.

ALL ARC members and especially those in Texas need to write these people asap and ask that HB1096 be killed NOW ! Be nice ! The text of the bill can be found in the info below at the state wesite . On it's face the bill doesn't ask for a breed ban but it is underhanded and allows backdooring of such laws if passed . Below are the names, fax and emails of the reps on the committee that is deciding whether to give this bill a hearing date or not. Also, included is a copy of the letter which Jeff Shaver, ARC's AKC Legislative Liaison, wrote to this committee.

HB 1096 will exempt the city of Houston from the current state law prohibiting Breed Specific Legislation in Texas!

Representative Al Edwards has told RPOA that he wants to pass Breed Specific Legislation regarding Rottweilers and so-called "Pit Bulls" in the city of Houston. Since existing Texas law prohibits this, Edwards said he wants to exempt Houston from the existing law. He has ignored RPOA and AKC letters of opposition and phone calls and filed HB 1096 in spite of our protests.

Edwards stated to the media that he hopes his bill will be amended to include the entire state. At the present time, it only applies to a municipality with a population of 1.9 million or more. This will include San Antonio (population 1.4 million now) in the not-too-distant future.

Edwards' bill is cleverly written and the significance of it is easily overlooked if you don't reference current state law. HB 1096 establishes Subchapter F. Regulation of Dogs in Certain Municipalities. BUT it states under (b): SUBCHAPTER D [IN CURRENT LAW] DOES NOT APPLY TO A MUNICIPALITY SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER. Subchapter D is where current law prohibits Breed Specific Legislation being passed in Texas municipalities. This is confusing but read it carefully.

HB 1096 clears the way to pass BSL in Texas. One more time: Houston will not be subject to our state law prohibiting BSL in municipalities if this law passes. Houston could ban or restrict ownership of certain dog breeds. To read the entire bill, go to: www.capitol.state.tx.us and type in the bill number. Information on all the committee members is on the web site also. You may have to go to the web site to send emails directly to legislators. CONTACT ALL OF THEM!

The president of the American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (ATTS) has stated that the rate of passing for the "Pit Bull Breeds" is slightly better than the national average for all breeds tested. He further states ATTS has tested over 190 different breeds. Unfortunately the media is not interested in good dogs.

Breed Specific Legislation is opposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, Humane Society of the United States, American Kennel Club, American Dog Owners Association, National Animal Interest Alliance,
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA),United Kennel Club, and other national organizations.

HB 1096 requires ALL dog owners to meet the requirements of a secured enclosure without regard to whether the dog was dangerous. If serious bodily injury or death occurs, it becomes a felony. ALL other offenses under Chapter 822 are misdemeanors! There is no Hearing Requirement. It would prohibit the use (or training) of agility dogs, herding dogs, and many American Kennel Club outdoor performance events. And NO, we don't want an exemption. We want this bill KILLED!

HB 1096 passed the Urban Affairs Committee unanimously and is now in the Calendars Committee. This is a powerful committee which schedules bills to be heard on the House Floor. We must bombard them with phone calls, faxes and e-mails OPPOSING this bill. Since the chairman and four other committee members have Houston offices, our work is cut out for us. We must convince the committee that there is no such breed as "pit bull" and these laws unfairly discriminate against responsible pet owners of many breeds. Punish the deed, not the breed. AKC and RPOA oppose all breed specific laws. A Richardson, TX, breed specific law was overturned in 1988 which led to our existing state law prohibiting BSL. We don't want history repeating itself.
[Illinois now has a bill filed affecting 10 breeds of dogs!]

Bill Author: Rep. Al Edwards
(Has Houston district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0518
Fax: (512) 463-7968
Al.Edwards@house.state.tx.us

All addresses are: PO Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768

Committee on Calendars Clerk: Amy Ehlert, Phone: (512) 463-0758, Room: EXT E2.1010

Chairman: Rep. Beverly Woolley
(Website states: "works closely with elected officials in Houston/Harris County. Has Houston district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0696
Fax: (512) 463-9333
Beverly.Woolley@house.state.tx.us

Vice-Chair: Rep. Gene Seaman
(Has Corpus Christi district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0672
Fax: (512) 463-3509
Gene.Seaman@house.state.tx.us

Members
Rep. Bill Callegari
(Has Houston district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0528
Fax: (512) 463-7820
Bill.Callegari@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Gary Elkins
(Has Houston district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0722
Fax: (512) 472-5610
Gary.Elkins@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Lois W. Lolkhorst
(Has Brenham district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0600
No Toll: (866) 829-6370
Fax: (512) 463-5240
Lois.Lolkhorst@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Vilma Luna
(Has Corpus Christi district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0484
Fax: (512) 463-8090
Vilma.Luna@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Brian McCall
(Has Plano district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0594
Fax: (512) 463-5896
Brian.mccall@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Sid Miller
(Has Stephenville district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0628
Fax: (512) 463-3644
Sid.miller@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Patrick M. Rose
(Has San Marcos district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0647
Fax: (512) 473-9946
Patrick.Rose@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Sylvester Turner
(Has Houston district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0554
Fax: (512) 463-8380
Sylvester.Turner@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale
(Has Houston district office.)
Phone: (512) 463-0661
Fax: (512) 463-4130
Corbin.van.arsdale@house.state.tx.us


SAMPLE LETTER WRITTEN BY JEFF SHAVER

March 9, 2005


Chairman & Members of Committee on Calendars


Chairman: Beverly Woolley

Vice-Chair: Rep Gene Seaman

Member: Rep Bill Callegari

Rep Gary Elkins

Rep Lois W. Lolkhorst

Rep Vilma Luna

Rep Brian McCall

Rep Sid Miller

Rep Patrick M. Rose

Rep Sylvester Turner

Rep Corbin Van Arsdale
Re: Opposition to House Bill 1096


Dear Chairman Wooley & Representatives:

My name is Jeff Shaver and I live in Houston, Texas. I am writing both personally and as a member of several national organizations that promote canine welfare including the American Rottweiler Club, The Colonial Rottweiler Club, The Medallion Rottweiler Club, and others. As you can tell from the introductory sentence, I own Rottweilers. My opposition to House Bill 1096 is essentially two fold. One, I believe it is a "back door" method by Representative Edwards to ban specific breeds in Houston and elsewhere in Texas without raising the public's awareness of what is being done. Secondly, the bill as written is over reaching. The same results could be met with less intrusive and constitutional legislation, if Representative Edwards really feels there is a need for this type of law. I will address each of these points in more detail below. I would like to state however, that I would request that this Committee kill any further progress of this bill by refusing to give it a hearing date before the House. It does not merit a vote.

Several weeks before this bill was introduced the animal "community" knew that Representative Edwards had proposed it. He has made no secret of his ultimate goal, namely the banning of specific breeds of dogs in Houston and hopefully the entire state. He has made this statement to the media and in responses he has made to the Responsible Pet Owners of America (RPOA). Numerous letters and calls from many national organizations including the American Kennel Club and others have been made to Representative Edwards. I myself, emailed Representative Edwards and never received the courtesy of a reply.

Breed specific bans in Texas and in most other states are clearly unconstitutional. The current law in Texas which bans action by municipalities that would "outlaw" specific breeds of dogs arose out of litigation in the late 1980's involving the City of Richardson. In almost every venue where breed specific legislation has been passed and challenged in court, it has been held unconstitutional. Representative Edwards introduced this bill and pushed it through the Committee on Urban Affairs selling it as a regulation to be placed on all breeds of dogs to prevent bites and other incidents "to protect the public". By specifically exempting Sub Chapter D of Chapter 822 of the Health and Safety Code, Mr. Edwards knows full well what he is trying to do, namely giving municipalities the option of banning specific breeds of dogs. If Representative Edwards wanted to pass legislation to ban specific breeds of dogs then he should do so in plan English and make it known to the public so the hundreds of thousands of animal owners in the state of Texas can face him in a debate, in the open. As written, however House Bill 1096 was designed to insulate Representative Edwards from such a backlash. The word however is now getting out as you are probably aware from the letters and calls your offices have received.

The entire idea of banning specific breeds of dogs, even though that is not the purported purpose of the legislation, rests on numerous fallacies about dogs in general. The American Veterinary Medical Association, The Humane Society of the United States, The American Kennel Club, The American Dog Owners Association, Responsible Pet Owners Association, The National Animal Interest Alliance, The American Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The United Kennel Club and numerous other national organizations, which are not breed specific, all oppose breed specific legislation. As has been proven by animal behaviorists in courts that have litigated this issue, there is no inherent genetic make up of any particular breed of dog that makes it more likely to bite or attack than any other. The root of the problem in these situations was, is, and always will be the owner. What is needed is enforcement of existing laws or the strengthening of some existing laws regarding confinement of animals, enforcement of leash laws, and the punishment of owners that abuse, neglect, or otherwise fail to take care of, in a responsible manner, their dogs or other animals. I personally would lead the fight to stop irresponsible pet ownership and in fact an actively involved in rescuing abused and or abandoned Rottweilers as well as other breeds of dogs. The solution is not to prohibit specific dogs, but prohibit the actions of certain owners that use the animals either for illegal purposes such as dog fighting, or that allow their animals to roam loose thereby disrupting the community in which they live. Numerous municipalities and in some cases state legislatures around the country have in fact adopted legislation that tackles the problem of "dangerous dogs" without banning specific breeds of dogs. I, through the organizations I belong to, will be happy to provide you or Representative Edwards with draft copies of such legislation that in fact could be passed and would be supported by persons such as myself for the most part. Confiscating and/or banning specific breeds of dogs, particularly without due process has several other negative side affects. What would happen at the hundreds of AKC dog shows, field trials, tracking trials, and other sporting events that are held in this state particularly in the Houston area were several "large breeds" of dogs were to be banned as envisioned by Representative Edwards? After the dust settled from all the litigation, and assuming the law still stood after a court battle, what would happen to the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in tourist money that is spent in the state every year by animal lovers, in particular dog owners that participate in those events. For example one of the largest series of dog shows in the country happens every year in Houston with dogs competing from all over the country.

As for the specific bill which has been put forward by Representative Edwards, (even if the loop hole was not in it to ban specific breeds), there are several problems as proposed. First there are few due process certainties. The bill certainly lacks specificity as to who other than animal control officers might have the authority to bring charges or make decisions regarding the confiscation and/or destruction of certain animals and the determination of whether an attack was "unprovoked". Giving such power to animal control officers (without due process rights for the owners) certainly causes concern in situations where you have neighbors that don't get along for one reason or another. Those situations are fairly common, and if a dog is involved, that can be used as a weapon by one neighbor against the other based solely upon someone's word. Secondly, as an attorney, I have some concern with making a felony of what would be an "accident" in most circumstances. As currently proposed the bill would make it a felony, for example, if despite of having a "secure enclosure" as contemplated, a dog some how managed to escape or was let out of its enclosure and caused harm. Does that warrant a felony charge against an otherwise "good owner"? Certainly not. The legislation should be written to make a felony the use of dogs for fighting or for the abuse of animals that could lead to them becoming aggressive or otherwise uncontrolled and roaming in the public generally. Basically the problem is that there is no hearing requirement regarding confiscation and destruction of a dog. Additionally as written, the legislation requires constant enclosure of a dog or having a dog on leash. This would virtually wipe out the use of dogs in obedience training, which occurs in all AKC events, agility training, herding dogs that are used for herding cattle in competitions in and actual work around the state, search and rescue work, and any other American Kennel Club or other kennel club outdoor performance events. There events are "off-lead".

Portions of Representative Edwards bill are actually good, although redundant. Most localities already have leash laws which go unenforced. Most localities make it illegal for animals to roam which I assume in the same goal of the "secure enclosure" requirements of Representative Edwards bill. Again, these are simply not enforced. Adding duplicative laws without enforcing either of them is going to do NO good. Finally there are some real constitutional issues with the definition of "attack by dog" and making such a felony. Under the proposed legislation owning an animal which has never shown any aggression before could result in someone going to state prison for a substantial period of time if for some reason that animal did bite someone "unprovoked". I have already discussed above several situations where this could occur such as with "feuding neighbors" and a "he said/ she said" type situation of whether the bite was actually provoked or not. Overall the bill as written is nothing new to the current state of law in almost every city in the state of Texas as well as most counties. It does nothing to further enforce either the existing laws or this new law. It does nothing to address the actual problems which are unscrupulous "attack trainers", gang member, irresponsible or abusive pet owners that are the real causes of almost every incident with a dog bite. Basically the laws are already on the books to control any perceived problems with roaming or menacing dogs. The existing laws are simply not enforced and adding more red tape and laws, that probably won't be enforced either, will not solve what Mr. Edwards sees as the problem.

As noted previously as a member of several national organizations and an owner for over twenty years of Rottweilers, I can certainly provide resources such as good proposed legislation and/or ways to enforce the existing legislation that would more accurately address the problem without infringing upon an individuals right to own certain types of dogs and handle them in a responsible and appropriate manner. The easy and most sensational way to grab headlines is to push for bans of specific breeds of dog in the immediate response to a bite or other incident. The more appropriate way to actually address any such perceived problem is through enforcement of existing laws particularly those designed to protect animals from abuse and require responsible pet ownership. As you can tell I have copied Representative Edwards with this letter (which I would ask that he consider a supplement to my previous email.) I would be more than happy to provide any written materials or further testimony, live, as needed. As currently written and with the underlying "real" purposes in mind for this bill I, along with millions of other dog owners in the state of Texas and around the country would ask that this bill not be put through to the House or given a hearing date for the reasons discussed above.


Respectfully submitted,


Jeff Shaver, responsible Rottweiler owner


cc: Rep Al Edwards

[Burnsway]

Thanks Judi! I posted his first stab at this back in November:

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/showthread.php?t=41141