Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2009, 01:20 PM
 
3 posts, read 16,874 times
Reputation: 11

Advertisements

Does anyone have any information on this?

Per KLBJ talk radio this morning...

The Representative from Bexar County (San Antonio) will be introducing legislation to allow ALL Texas Counties to limit the number of dogs that a person can own both within municipalities AS WELL AS UNICORPORATED/RURAL AREAS!!!

Last edited by clotheshound; 01-06-2009 at 01:36 PM.. Reason: Moved from San Antonio forum, since this is a statewide issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2009, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany
13,815 posts, read 29,262,528 times
Reputation: 4025
It's probably to stop the puppy farms and the crazies that have 150 dogs in their trailer. I couldn't imagine having five and anything else would just be pure insanity.
So I support this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 01:28 PM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
17,107 posts, read 37,941,720 times
Reputation: 14444
FWIW, the Legislature won't be in session for at least another week. This is the time of year when many bills get filed. Few of them actually get to the floor for a vote.

If you have questions like this about a bill, the Legislative Reference Library of Texas can help you find it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 01:41 PM
 
Location: DFW Texas
3,127 posts, read 7,598,616 times
Reputation: 2256
I totally support this. Why would anyone need more than 2 animals anyway? I have some friends that have 4 dogs in a small 2 bedroom house. They spend more money on dog food then food for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 01:42 PM
 
3 posts, read 16,874 times
Reputation: 11
Thank you very much Bowie - seeking as much information as I can, I just heard about this this morning. Thank you for taking the time to share.

We do have several dogs, we show & do rescues and I must admit, yes selecting just 5 would be very hard and also put an end to us taking in the strays and trying to re-home them - especially if we get fined for it.

Working at the vets office does not help either - we all tend to take home what others leave at the back door
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 25,075,985 times
Reputation: 5219
I don't see how that could be enforced. I'm all for stopping puppy mills, though. Good for you, clotheshound. The dog and cat overpopulation is inexcusable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 11:26 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,064 posts, read 17,941,130 times
Reputation: 3729
Most rescues rely on people to foster animals until they're adopted. This bill would pose a problem for rescue groups.

What they should be focusing on is abuse and neglect, not on numbers, per se. I have three dogs who are loved, healthy, happy and secure. My next-door neighbor had one dog that they left outside on a chain all day and night, wasn't fed properly and had untreated mange. Some people simply should not have a dog or dogs but why penalize those who take good care of their animals and even assist in rescue efforts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2009, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 25,075,985 times
Reputation: 5219
Good point, teatime. I had a neighbor (fortunately, she moved) who had one dog which was totally ignored too. I will not soon forget seeing the poor dog chained to the fence, standing in icy water. A homicide was considered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 04:52 AM
 
3 posts, read 16,874 times
Reputation: 11
You can view the bill at: www.capitol.state.tx.us Type HB 458 in the search bar.
The bill was proposed on: 12/22/2008 By: Rep. Leibowitz his phone numbers and contact information are listed at the bottom of the email.

And here is an email I received today from the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance in San Antonio...

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.

January 7, 2009
The Texas Legislature convenes their 81st Regular Session on January 13th and adjourns at the end of May. However bills are already being filed so fasten your seat belts, this will be a rough year.

The Responsible Pet Owners Alliance's Board of Directors voted last night to OPPOSE HB 458 filed by Rep. David Leibowitz from San Antonio relating to "limitations on the number of dogs at a residence in certain counties."

The bill states:
"The commissioners court of a county with a population of one million or more by order may limit the number of dogs that an individual may keep at a residence located in a residential subdivision in the unincorporated area of the county."
(Note this is unincorporated areas only. However it is a trend we don't want to see established in our counties.)

The "residential subdivision" means a subdivision that is platted and
recorded in the county real property records; in which the majority of the lots are subject to deed restrictions limiting lots to residential use and that includes at least five lots that have existing residential structures.

A meeting will be scheduled with Rep. Leibowitz asap to ask him to pull his bill, that we vehemently oppose it for the reasons listed below.

Limit Laws:
* Target all pet owners, regardless of the behavior of their animals.
* Are hard to enforce as pet owners will simply hide their pets.
* Cause a decline in the number of pets licensed and vaccinated for Rabies. Bordering Mexico, there's always a Rabies threat in Texas and the primary concern of elected officials should be that all animals are vaccinated for Rabies.
* A person with one dog that runs loose or barks all night is a greater nuisance than a person with a dozen dogs that are quiet, clean, and kept at home. Numbers have no relationship to nuisances.

Please contact your legislators and tell them that you oppose this bill. ALWAYS ask for the person in charge of legislation. If you don't know your legislators, go to:

www.capitol.state.tx.us/home.aspx and fill in the box at the bottom "Who represents me?"

Then contact bill sponsor Rep. Leibowitz and politely ask that he withdraw HB 458. Phone Austin: (512) 463-0269, Fax: (512) 320-0555 and/or Phone San Antonio: (210) 372-0759, Fax: (210) 372-1405. Ask for the person in charge of legislation.

If you haven't joined RPOA, do so today. Your animals will be glad you did. For the "Lobbyist Fund", mail donations to RPOA Texas Outreach (the 501 C4) at the address below. For a tax deductible donation, you can join RPOA (the 501 C3) on our website with PayPal or mail in the membership form.

RPOA Texas Outreach (501 C4)
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501 C3)
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
$15 Annual dues (January - December)
To subscribe or unsubscribe,e-mail rpoa@texas.net.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2009, 05:57 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
5,080 posts, read 9,878,685 times
Reputation: 1105
It states certain counties.. not all of TX. What Counties I dont know.


Quote:
81R3883 EAH-D

By: Leibowitz H.B. No. 458


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to limitations on the number of dogs at a residence in
certain counties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter Z, Chapter 240, Local Government
Code, is amended by adding Section 240.904 to read as follows:
Sec. 240.904. REGULATION OF NUMBER OF DOGS AT RESIDENCE.
(a) In this section, "residential subdivision" has the meaning
assigned by Section 240.081.
(b) The commissioners court of a county with a population of
one million or more by order may limit the number of dogs that an
individual may keep at a residence located in a residential
subdivision in the unincorporated area of the county.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2009.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top