DEAR HOUSE CALENDARS COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
I believe in our right to own animals and the best humane treatment of animals.
I have owned animals – several species – for the last 70 years.
I’m a member of several organizations listed at the end of this email –
One of which is The Responsible Pet Owners Alliance.
Attached is our flyer regarding opposition to HB 873 & companions.
Pet dogs that we bred, birthed, and raised are currently ranked
by the American Kennel Club (AKC) number one in the their breed.
AKC has strict guidelines as to temperament and representation of each breed.
You cannot achieve these goals without giving the absolute best care and socializing.
We are proud of these achievements and are offended when we are falsely attacked for animal cruelty.
I might add that we very carefully chose who to breed together breeding away from any defects and to emphasize the very best qualities to represent the breed and temperament – Unlike humans who breed totally indiscriminately.
There are those in the ‘animal rights community’ whose agenda is to eliminate our right to own animals for any reason and I am opposed to that.
They have found they are able to play on the emotions of unknowing legislators, spending thousands of $$$
(Last session they spent over $500,000!!!) to forward their agenda by proposing legislation to do the same.
HB 873 is an example.
Leaving a dog or any animal chained or tethered so long that the chain/tether embeds in their neck or
Leaving them without shelter/food/water is already against the law and I am very much against this animal cruelty!
HOWEVER,
TEXAS ALREADY HAS THE STRONGEST ANIMAL CRUELTY STATUTES IN THE US AND IS ENFORCEABLE!
Proponents say – HB 873 makes basic, common-sense improvements to the current law, (there is a definite conflict of interest here – what is common sense to these people is completely upside down because of their agenda to eliminate ownership/use of animals for any reason – documentation of this is available if you want)
Their arguments –
● Establishes a basic definition of shelter to protect dogs from extreme elements – Their ‘basic definition’ involves making every doghouse and crate available today illegal by their standards and their legislation makes no distinction for shelter/protection for different breeds – one size fits all.
● Eliminates loopholes and allows officers to use their discretion when encountering dogs – ‘loopholes and discretion’ to them takes away our citizen’s right to cure a potential problem at least once before your animal, in most cases is your most prized possession, is seized then to incur ‘reasonable –haha’ boarding charges, attorney fees, court costs, etc.
● Prevents dogs from being injured by heavy chains – SEE REGISTRY STATEMENTS BELOW REGARDING TETHERING/CONTAINMENT.
Again the animal rights agenda is – one legislation fits all – they do not make any distinction between different needs for differing breeds of dogs – from a Chihuahua to a powerful hunting dog that can only be restrained by chain. What is ‘cruel’ to these people is absolutely not animal cruelty! Texas already has one of the strongest animal cruelty laws in the US!
The authorities just need to enforce our laws!!!
Given these peoples agenda(and their infiltration into animal control), their exemptions are a JOKE and they will use every opportunity to impose their agenda.
As an example of their ‘discretion and common sense’
See –
“Fat” mare being taken from owner’s property with no notice and when owner was not there (2006).
I think it is a travesty that when the accuser/authorities get it wrong and
The accused STILL HAS TO PAY AND LOOSES THEIR PROPERTY!
Think it can’t happen?
See –
