Doberman Pinscher Club of Houston

UPDATE: The bills did not become law during the last legislative session. THANK YOU to everyone who helped fight this legislation!

Why These Bills Are Bad Legislation

HB 1096 and SB 1111 are two identical bills that address the regulation of dogs in municipalities with a population of 1.9 million or more. These bills target Houston and make it a third-degree felony offense if your dog attacks someone and causes serious bodily injury or death. The bills were drafted in response to the mauling death of Fannie Pearl Pharms by two Pit Bulls and a Rottweiler. The dogs got out of their fenced yard and attacked the 57 year old woman as she walked to a bus stop in November 2003.

These bills are problematic for the following reasons.

The bills apply only to Houston and are thus discriminatory. If you live in Houston and your dog bites someone, you can be charged with a felony. If your neighbor across the street lives in another municipality, such as West University, the same type of bite is only chargeable as a misdemeanor. If a serious dog bite should be a felony offense, it should be a felony offense everywhere in Texas.

The bills treat ALL dogs as if they were dangerous dogs. The bills requires a dog to be restrained on a leash or contained in a secure locked enclosure. Failure to comply is a misdemeanor offense. Technically this means no more Obedience or Agility in Houston because these events are performed off-leash. The bills also eliminates a dog owner's opportunity to request a hearing to appeal a dangerous dog determination. In effect, all dogs in Houston would be considered de facto dangerous dogs.

The bills open the door to breed specific legislation (BSL) in Houston. The bills state that subchapter D of Health & Safety Code Chapter 822 (Regulation of Animals) does not apply to Houston. Subchapter D defines dangerous dogs, requires their secure containment, and prohibits restrictions specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs. If this subchapter no longer applies to Houston, then specific breeds can be restricted in the city. Al Edwards, sponsor of HB 1096 has stated to the media that he wants to ban Pit Bulls and Rottweilers from the city. This bill, in the guise of tougher punishment for serious dog bites, is the first step toward BSL in Houston. Don't let it happen!

What You Can Do

Call or write to your State Senators and Representatives to find out their position on these bills and make them aware of your concerns. To determine who represents you, click here. HB 1096 has already passed in the House, so our best chance to stop this legislation is by targeting SB 1111. This bill has just been assigned to the Senate's Criminal Justice Committee which is headed by John Whitmire from Houston. Contact the Criminal Justice Committee members to make them aware of your opposition to this bill.

Jeff Shaver, an attorney and Rottweiler breeder, is organizing a group of concerned dog owners to travel to Austin on short notice to attend the SB 1111 hearing and voice opposition to the bill. If you would like to join this group, contact Jeff at 713-557-0807. You can contact Carly with the Criminal Justice Committee at 512-463-0345 to learn when the bill will be heard by the committee.

Sample Letter

Personalize the following sample letter by choosing a few issues that most concern you.

Month Day, 2005

Representative Name
P.O. Box xxxx
Austin, TX 78768

RE: H.B. 1096 and S.B. 1111
Regulation of Dogs

Dear Representative Name,

I am contacting you about two pending bills, H.B. 1096 and S.B. 1111 which are identical and address the regulation of dogs in certain municipalities. As a dog owner I would like to know your position on the bills and any comments you may have on them. These bills are very important not only to me, but to every dog owner in the City of Houston. They will impact every one of us.

In reviewing the bills, there are a number of issues which I feel deserve discussion. These issues include, but are not limited to the following:

1. The bill applies only to a municipality with a population of 1.9 million or more (i.e. Houston). If you look at the metropolitan area it is clear that this bill is discriminatory. If I live in Houston and my neighbor across the street lives in West University, Bellaire, South Houston, etc. the bill does not apply to them. Is it fair and just that if my dog should bite I face a third-degree felony and my neighbor across the street in another city (surrounded by Houston) would only face a misdemeanor if his dog should bite and then only if the dog is a dangerous dog? Is this equal justice under the Texas Constitution?
   
2. The bill requires a “secure enclosure” which means a fenced area or structure that is :(A) locked; (B) capable of preventing the entry of the general public, including children; (C) capable of preventing the escape or release of a dog; (D) clearly marked as containing a dog; and (E) in conformance with the requirements for enclosures established by the local animal control authority. This provision presents numerous problems. If I have a fenced yard capable of preventing entry of the general public that would also include the electric , gas, and possibly water meter readers. If they are not able to gain access to the meters they have the authority to shut off my services. That would apply to every dog owner who is required to have a “secure enclosure”.
   
   The bill requires that the fenced area or structure is in conformance with the requirements for enclosures established by the local animal control authority. That would allow the City of Houston Animal Control Authority to set any standards they wanted. It might be a six foot high chain link fence, or a six foot high wood fence. The cost for that could be very high. Also this would set up a conflict between those developments that have deed restrictions on the type of fences or enclosures that can be built in the development and the city requirements. That could prevent anyone in such a development from having a dog. Is that fair and just?
   
3. What is a “unprovoked attack” as noted in the bills? If someone reaches over the fence and hits my dog and she bites them, is that “unprovoked”? If someone trespasses in my yard and gets bitten would I still be subject to prosecution? What if a burglar enters the yard on his way to my house and is bitten, am I liable to be prosecuted? If a child pulls my dog's hair and the dog bites as a result, is that “unprovoked”? Being charged in any of these situations would require me to spend a considerable sum to present a defense to the charge.
   
4. The bill provides that “a person commits an offense if, regardless of the person’s mental state the person is the owner of a dog and the dog makes an unprovoked attack on another”. The Texas Penal Code, 6.02 provides for a requirement of culpability. Four separate culpable mental states are set out. If you look through the penal code it is difficult to find any crime that does not require some culpable mental state. In this bill they do away with that requirement. Is this “offense” so horrible that it should not require some culpable mental state?
   
5. If this bill passes, a person in every other part of the state, except Houston, would be liable for prosecution under the provisions of 822.044 which provides that prosecution only occurs after the dog has been declared a dangerous dog and only if the attack takes place outside of the dog’s enclosure. In Houston, in the proposed bill, if the attack occurs inside the dogs enclosure a person could be prosecuted. The proposed bills also remove the requirement that the dog was declared to be a dangerous dog. Again, a case of discrimination based on being a Houston resident and not living elsewhere in Texas.
   
6. Section (d) of the proposed bill allows the attorney for a municipality (i.e. Houston) to file suit in court to collect a civil penalty of up to $10,000 from the dog owner. Texas Penal Code section 12.34 Third Degree Felony Punishment provides that in addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000. According, a person could be facing both a criminal fine and a civil penalty. Is this a source of revenue for Houston? I say Houston because if the bite occurs in West University or Bellaire the dog owner would not be facing the civil penalty and the third degree felony. Again, equal justice?
   
7. During the year various dog clubs hold shows in Houston. Some of these are national or regional shows that draw entrants from all over the country. If this bill were to pass it would be the “kiss of death” to any future dog shows in Houston. One activity in the dog shows is called Obedience and another is Agility. Both these competition activities are done with the dogs off a leash. Section 822.154 of the proposed bill requires that an owner of a dog must restrain the dog at all times on a leash in the immediate control of the owner or in a secure enclosure. This provision would not allow the competition noted. Every dog owner in the competition would be subject to prosecution. This could end dog shows in Houston and end the revenues they generate for dog clubs, hotels, eateries, and other vendors.
   
8. Section 822.155 of the proposed bill provides that it is a defense to prosecution under this subchapter that the person is a veterinarian. However, it does not provide a defense if the person bitten is a veterinary technician or someone else working for the veterinarian. It is often individuals other that the veterinarian who handle the dogs at a clinic. This is just another problem with the bill. A reasonable and proper defense should also be if someone is a trespasser on my property and is bitten.
   
9. There has been an effort to create parks to provide for on-leash and off-leash walking of dogs. A bill, S.B. 1224, has been filed to directly address this issue in the area of “recreation” and limiting the liability of government units who provide these parks. If H.B. 1096 and S.B. 1111 are passed, they would kill this activity which government units are trying to provide.
   
10. Section 822.0421 of the current statute provides for a notice to a person that they have a “dangerous dog” and also provides a dog owner the opportunity to request a court hearing to appeal a determination that a dog is a “dangerous dog”. A resident of Houston would be denied this right that is extended to every other dog owner in the state.

A review of the legislative history on H.B. 1096 reflects that the bill was filed on February 15, referred to the Urban Affairs Committee on February 16 and scheduled for a hearing on March 1. It was considered on March 1, testimony taken on that day, and reported favorably on the same day. The only persons who reportedly testified were members of one family from Houston who were for the bill with no one against it. Was this a stacked event? It appears that way.

In my opinion the bill is very poorly drafted, discriminatory based on my residence in the City of Houston, creates a harsh felony that could be applied in an unreasonable or unjust fashion, and presents a host of other problems. It is my understanding that the basis for the bill is the death of a person by dogs at large. I do not condone those dog owners who do not show reasonable care in securing their dogs to prevent them from running at large. This bill goes well beyond attempting to address that problem however.

Accordingly, I would request that you respond to the issues I have presented so that I may know your position on the bill. This is not only an issue with me, but there are many, many other dog owners who will be affected by this bill and are interested in learning your position on it.

Respectfully,