Sensible dog laws

[German Vanegas]

We have discussed, at length, the issue about irresponsible breeding and irresponsible dog ownership. We have identified a serious problem.

Because of lack of understanding about canine behavior, some powerful groups, such as the Insurance Industry, US Postal Service, Peta, and others, are pressing politicians to enact laws banning specific breeds and restricting others. Sadly enough, our beloved breed, the great Rottweiler, has been targeted as a dangerous dog. It is a sad reality of life: irresponsible people have mishandled and misused the breed so bad, that has caused too many unjustified dog attacks and bites... Consequently, our breed is paying the price for irresponsible dog owners The Rottweiler is being "branded" as a "bad dog" http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/frown.gif

We know that education is the key. We need and have to educate others. Many dog owners consistently fail to raise a Rottweiler properly, whether be for lack of knowledge or total ignorance or, out of blatant negligence and irresponsablity (these are the worse kind of all!). When things go wrong, the breed is to be blamed and no the irresponsible people! http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/frown.gif

We need to teach people what the Rottweiler is all about... The Rottweiler breed is definitely not suited for everybody.

"OK, so what do we now?" My buddy Doug ("Grumbler") asked me. Well, we need sensible dog legislation! What kind of dog legislation is sensible? Easy: the one that does not discriminates against any breed in particular!. In Texas we have general Dangerous Dog Laws, but they are not breed specific. They refer to ANY dog breed that may become dangerous. In Texas, if you are a responsible dog owner, you will have no problems... For instance, I haven't! However, if you are an irresponsible dog owner, they will penalize you and your dog. Sounds fair to me!

So here we go, you will find a link to check our Texas Dangerous Dogs Laws. Read them carefully and let me know what your personal opinion on this one issue is.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...#he031.822.047

Are they sensible dog laws to you, or not?

[This message has been edited by German Vanegas (edited January 09, 2001).]

[WorkinDogz]

OMG...I never thought I'd see myself type this...but...WAY TO GO TEXAS!!! "Don't Mess With (or be an irresponsible schmuck in) Texas"

Those are common sense laws German. As they should be. Very straight forward, clear and concise. Nothing flowery about it. If your dog bites someone; you're going to be held accountable. Period.

(and yes; you can call me "Bud" http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif )

[German Vanegas]

WorkingDogz, or "Bud" http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif, as you can see there are few of us addressing the problem and truly interested in finding a "middle ground", to compromise reponsible dog ownership without banning or restricting any specific breeds. People just want to have a dog, period. If the Rottweiler is banned, well, I supposse they can always get another "big dog" http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/frown.gif

[Bruce Lanthier]

I received a "search error" when clicking on the link. Is it long? Perhaps you could post it here?

[Volunteer]

I get the search error as well.

[whitney greenway]

German,
I sent you a private message. I could not get in it as well. I've tried several times, with no luck!

[German Vanegas]

I think is fixed now. Please try again;

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...#he031.822.047

I don't think laws are the answer. No law can prevent the first bite/attack/etc. And that is often extremely severe. E.g. see attached article excerpt: the second assault happened in Texas, home of the "dangerous dog laws".
That saide, I completely agree with NON SPECIFIC dog legislation. That will reduce repeat offenders. But I also think that too much emphasis is being placed on restrictive laws (e.g. dangerous dogs laws), when we need to force a rethinking of the entire approach towards dog ownership in general.
I think that whenever the light bulb goes on in people's heads, regarding dogs (i.e. that OWNERS are responsible for their dogs, just like they are responsible for their children), then their treatment of dogs changes (unless they are totally psychotic, which some are towards dogs, children, or anything/everything). Until then, you can try to enact all the laws in the world and nothing much changes. Ignorant people just continue to get fined/etc. and get more dogs.

Knight Ridder article:

When his family's pit bull destroyed the face of a 2-year-old Tulsa, Okla., boy last fall, the entire plastic surgery department at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas worked in shifts night and day for 39 hours on the toddler's initial reconstruction.
His cheeks, nose, lower eyelids, facial flesh and muscles had been torn away. Only his eyes and forehead remained when the marathon surgery began.
Two months later, many of the same doctors were involved in reattaching the entire scalp and rebuilding the delicate back of the neck of a 3-year-old Austin, Texas, boy, assaulted by a Rottweiler.

[whitney greenway]

I think that these laws are a good thing! It would be nice to see something like this happen all over! Banning the OFFENDING dog, rather than the WHOLE breed!

[German Vanegas]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by whitney greenway:
I think that these laws are a good thing! It would be nice to see something like this happen all over! Banning the OFFENDING dog, rather than the WHOLE breed!</font>

http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/smile.gif

[Sassy]

New Mexico: § 40-34-15. Injury to person trespassing, teasing dog, or attempting to commit crime.

No dog may be declared vicious if an injury or damage is sustained to any person who was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or who was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime.



44-17-202. Ignorance of dog's habits is no defense.
Ignorance of the vicious habits or character of the dog on the part of its owner shall be no defense in actions arising under § 44-17-201.

76-9-301.1. Dog fighting - Training dogs for fighting - Dog fighting exhibitions.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to:
(a) own, possess, keep, or train a dog with the intent to engage it in an exhibition of fighting with another dog;
(b) cause a dog to fight with another dog or cause a dog to injure another dog for amusement or gain;
(c) tie, attach, or fasten any live animal to a machine or device propelled by any power, for the purpose of causing the animal to be pursued by a dog; or

(d) permit or allow any act which violates Subsection (a), (b), or (c) on any premises under his charge; or to control, aid, or abet any such act.


(2) Possession of any breaking stick, treadmill, wheel, hot walker, cat mill, cat walker, jenni, or other paraphernalia together with evidence that the paraphernalia is being used or is intended for use in the unlawful training of a dog to fight with another dog, together with the possession of any such dog, is prima facie evidence of violation of Subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c).
(3) A person who violates Subsection (1) is guilty of a third degree felony, and any fine imposed may not exceed $25,000.
(4) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and intentionally be present as a spectator at any place, building, or tenement where preparations are being made for an exhibition of dog fighting, or to knowingly and intentionally be present at a dog fighting exhibition or any other occurrence of fighting or injury described in this section. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.


(5) Nothing in this section prohibits any of the following:
(a) the use of dogs for management of livestock by the owner, his employees or agents, or any other person in the lawful custody of livestock;
(b) the use of dogs for hunting; or

(c) the training of dogs or the possession or use of equipment in the training of dogs for any purpose not prohibited by law.

[Mick Trainer]

German,

These laws look great, clear, sensible and based in sence not common miseducated beliefs.

These laws are almost to the letter what I campaigned for 5 years ago over here. Unfortunately I failed to some extent (I was sold out by some other trainers etc) and our laws often work against responsible ownership.

Sorry to hear your son was attacked. Hope that he has fully recoved both physically and emotionally.

Mick.

[German Vanegas]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mick Trainer:
German,

These laws look great, clear, sensible and based in sence not common miseducated beliefs.
</font>

http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/smile.gif

My son is OK, thanks!



[This message has been edited by German Vanegas (edited January 10, 2001).]

[German Vanegas]

Sassy, New Mexico's dog laws seem to hit the problem right on.

[Bruce Lanthier]

It looks like a very good law. If I might ask, how did it get passed? Was an organized group of people responsible or an individual or a group of individuals? I'm wondering because it would be nice to try and get something like this in other states, like mine. I can't believe I want my state like Texas http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/biggrin.gif .