# Texans, please read! A Proposed Bill in the Texas House



## pandaparade (Dec 29, 2010)

Got dog? Texas legislation is gunning for you | PetConnection.com

It targets male dogs that have not been neutered
Pertains to dogs that weigh 20 pounds or more
Dogs must be restrained at all times
- On a leash in immediate control of a person
or
- Must be in a secure enclosure
Owner must have $100,000 worth of liability insurance

"There are other very significant implications of this proposed law because these dogs could not participate in any events off lead. For example, these dogs could not go to a dog park, could not be in agility competitions, entered in rally, tracking, obedience trials, or participate in off lead police work or hunting. Further, no male greyhounds could participate in dog racing since this sport is done off lead. Keep in mind that conformation dogs (show dogs) compete unneutered and many of them compete in other off lead sports. Also, many dogs participate in the other events intact because genetics play a key role in dogs that are used for police work, hunting, and the other fun events dogs participate in. In fact, these dogs could not even play in their own backyard unless it qualified as a “secure enclosure.”

Call your legislator


----------



## Tobi (Mar 18, 2011)

You would think that a few things would be negotiable for instance, a fenced in dog park is technically a "secure enclosure". and generally shows are indoors which may bypass this rule. :dunno:

But really it is a ridiculous bill, but i don't live there so there may be a dynamic that is causing a fuss, and making it necessary for this action to be taken.


----------



## MissusMac (Jan 6, 2011)

I'm on top of it!


----------



## pandaparade (Dec 29, 2010)

Yay! Awesome! That is what I like to hear! Spread the word


----------



## CavePaws (Jan 25, 2011)

How ridiculously dumb. I'll print this out with a complaint about it at the bottom from me and put the hand outs for clients at the front...This is ridiculous. I know so many dog people are going to be PISSED.


----------



## pandaparade (Dec 29, 2010)

Yep, I thought this would get to you Cavepaws, like it did with me. Completely ridiculous! Agility, obedience competitions... really?? .__.


----------



## CavePaws (Jan 25, 2011)

A lot of people don't neuter their agility dogs because they do conformation as well. I also know that a lot of them breed their dogs as well if they have good blood lines and health. At agility trials we take our dogs outside to practice off leash and it is normally not gated or fenced in. So what? Now the guys who are still intact can't warm up? That's going to cause injuries. What about people who take their dogs to the lake? I have lake property and the water is not fenced in...SO what the heck? Some people's dogs can't even swim?! This is ridiculous...I was planning on teaching Water classes and Boating classes in the summer out at our lake property...Now I may have to restrict the dogs who come? No way, that's so dumb.


----------



## pandaparade (Dec 29, 2010)

Yep, I totally agree. I really hope this doesn't pass. You are right about injuries.. that is no good. They simply are not thinking about the people who use off lead dogs for responsible activites like these.


----------



## mel2mdl (Sep 7, 2008)

Umm... not to be rude, just playing the devil's advocate. Have you read the whole thing? When I read it, it does NOT say that the dog must be restrained at all times, just that with larger, un-neutered dogs, you have to maintain a certain level of liability. (Most homeowner policies already have this, btw.) The way I read it is, if the dog is on a leash, in your yard, under your control and someone comes in and messes with it, you are not liable. BUT - if he is frequently off leash, at shows, or allowed to roam free, you need liability insurance. I'm sure it is targeting the big dogs who people refuse to neuter since it will 'remove their manhood' and allow to terrorize neighbors. 


Sec.A822.008.AACIVIL LIABILITY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN DOGS. (a) This section applies only to a male dog that: 
(1) has not been neutered; 
(2) weighs 20 pounds or more; and 
(3) is not restrained at all times: 
(A) on a leash in the immediate control of a person; or 
(B) in a secure enclosure. 

(b)The owner of a dog described by Subsection (a) is liable for damages to property and for death or bodily injury to a person resulting from an attack by the dog. 

(c) The owner of a dog described by Subsection (a) shall maintain liability insurance coverage in an amount of not less than 
$100,000 for each occurrence for liability for damages to property and for death or bodily injury to a person caused by the dog.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm with mel2mdl on this. It doesn't say you can't have your dogs in these situations, it just says that you have to be able to prove you can pay for any medical bills or property damage these dogs cause. You do that by purchasing liability insurance. Most people's homeowners insurance would cover that anyway. You just have to make sure you have $100,000 in liability coverage which you should have anyway. It's really not that expensive. I don't see it as being a big deal for the greatest majority of people.


----------



## Celt (Dec 27, 2010)

It could be true that the majority of people wouldn't be affect but it could cause problems for farmers (especially those with herd "protectors"), hunters, and others whose dogs need to work off leash as it states that the dogs must be on leash and in the immediate control of a person (which I'm assuming the person has to be holding the leash) and these dogs cannot generally be restrained at all times and be able to do their "work".


----------

