Go Pitbull Forums banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

· Bitch Noone Wanted
8,946 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
>From RPOA Texas Outreach and
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
"Animal welfare, not animal 'rights'
and, yes, there is a difference."
Permission granted to crosspost.
February 10, 2011

HB 998 by Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, is a bill that all dog
owners should oppose, not just hunting dog owners! Rep. Leo Berman,
R-Tyler, wants something done "that would require total security of any
animal that is known to attack human beings." Rep. Chuck Hopson,
R-Jacksonville, has been quoted in the media as saying a bill is also being
drafted by his office. So HB 998 is only the beginning of a very long and
heated legislative session as usual. They don't think this bill goes far
enough. It would also be very easy to make this bill breed specific.

From our friends at US Sportsmen:

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance

Texas Bill Would Cost Sporting Dog Owners Big Bucks
A bill introduced in Texas would require sporting dog owners to purchase
liability insurance for many of their dogs.

Take Action! Texas sportsmen should contact their state representatives
today and ask them to oppose House Bill 998. Tell them the bill will
create a financial hardship for many responsible sporting dog owners.

House Bill 998, introduced by Rep. Ruth McClendon (D- San Antonio),
would require owners of unneutered male dogs weighing 20 or more pounds,
that are not restrained at all times, to carry a minimum $100,000
insurance liability policy. A dog is only considered restrained if it
is either kept in an enclosure or kept on a leash under the immediate
control of a person at all times.

Failing to purchase the insurance would be a class C misdemeanor.

Under the bill, many sporting dog owners will be forced to buy the insurance
policy, neuter their dog, or face criminal charges. In addition, a large
number of sporting dog breeds weigh more than 20 pounds and would be
considered "unrestrained" under the bill's definition when hunting,
training, or field trialing. Even a securely tethered dog would be
considered unrestrained by this bill.

"It is completely unreasonable to require a dog owner who wants take their
dog hunting or to even play fetch in an unfenced back yard to require them
to purchase liability insurance to do so," said Jeremy
Rine, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance associate director of state services.
"In addition to being costly for dog owners, this bill sets an arbitrary
weight threshold - what happens if you have a dog that regularly fluctuates
between 19 and 20 pounds? This bill is unnecessary and
unreasonable and should be opposed by all dog owners alike."

To find your state representative's contact information, please visit
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.