Skip to main content


By May 20, 2019May 23rd, 2019Legislation

The animal rights crowd – THLN/H$U$/ALDF – has sent out messages thru all channels including Nextdoor to get their minions to contact any and all Texas Reps. asking them to support the Tethering/containment bill SB 295 (and companion HB 940).


Please send this email to any/all of your contacts/club members and ask them to contact their
Texas Rep. as constituents(they are supposed to listen to you as a constituent) and ask them to oppose SB 295.

To contact your Rep. by email, simply type your Reps. first name.last in the ‘To’ address and send your email opposing Sb 295.
To contact them by phone –
Please visit –
then click on your Reps. name and you will see their phone #.
Best is to talk with a person but in any case let them know you
Oppose SB 295!

If you need talking points please feel free to use any or all of my following email.

An excellent talking point is –
SB 295/HB 940 violates/prevents Canine Good Citizen TRAINING by its tethering restrictions!!!
Canine Good Citizen training/advanced obedience training REQUIRES leaving a dog TETHERED UNATTENDED FOR AN INDETERMINATE TIME,
And is pre-requisite training REQUIRED by many other disciplines –obedience, rally, service dogs, medical assistance dogs, rescue dogs, military dogs etc…
So ask your Rep. will you pass a bill criminalizing training for service dogs/medical assistance dogs/rescue dogs/military dogs?????
I hope not!!!!

Martin Kralik

My email sample follows –


Please oppose HB 940/SB 295 –

We are totally against animal cruelty in any form but

Proponents say – HB 940 / SB 295 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 should just use it!!!

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
Think it can’t happen?
See –

“Fat” mare being taken from owner’s property with no notice and when owner was not there (2006).

The “Fat” Horse Case: Illustrates the Importance of an Appeal. In 2006, the Houston SPCA was involved in a cruelty seizure of a horse that they alleged was too fat and this became the basis for seizing the mare. The owner was in the courtroom scared and woefully outnumbered with cruelty investigators, veterinarians, police and lawyers. The county provided an attorney and the constable who bothered to get a seizure warrant after the “fat” horse was taken from the pasture where she was kept. All of them testified against the poor owner who was trying desperately to make a point. What the owner was trying to say in court was that his mare, a beautiful registered Quarter Horse, was bred and about to deliver a foal. His feeble protests were ignored and he forever lost his mare with no chance for an appeal, and no opportunity for a jury. And by the way, the whole case was filmed by Animal Planet and there was a camera rolling in the face of the humiliated owner while trying to defend himself against the government Goliath. The judge divested the owner of his “fat” horse with emotionless dispatch.

How to Prevent an Appeal? Make it Too Expensive. The case of the “fat” mare is only one example of how egregious cruelty cases can become if there is not a system of checks and balances. The right to an appeal and a jury is part of what keeps this system honest, but the opponents of an appeal have been back every legislative session since 2009 trying to tack on more and more costs for the appeal bond to make appeals impossible. If you have the right to an appeal but the cost of the bond makes it cost prohibitive, then you don’t have the right to an appeal.

Another of the animal rights proponents bills, HB 250, is an attempt to make the cost of an appeal cost prohibitive.
I am hoping that HB 250 and SB 295/HB 940 will be defeated/killed before the end of this session.

Please see following tethering/confinement position statements from every expert registry US wide –

These registries represent hundreds of clubs of dog owners and breeders involved in actual animal husbandry, breeding, birthing, and socializing dogs to produce the most healthy, award winning, happy animals for many purposes including hunting, showing, and companions.
Please pay close attention to the ADBA statement, specifically strength of chains required to retain these very strong hog hunting dogs when nothing else will do!



AKC Adopts New Position Statement on Tethering


Dog Containment


ALERT! Texas Bill Restricting Tethering Up For Hearing

their statement from last session for SB 1090 – exact duplicate of SB 295 this session.

Following is more on why I oppose SB 295 –

Canine Good Citizen training/advanced obedience training REQUIRES leaving a dog TETHERED UNATTENDED FOR AN INDETERMINATE TIME,
And is pre-requisite training REQUIRED by many other disciplines –obedience, rally, service dogs, medical assistance dogs, rescue dogs, military dogs, etc…

SB 295/HB 940 violates/prevents Canine Good Citizen TRAINING by its tethering restrictions!!!

Tethering dogs is sometimes a good thing!

Here we go again. No one likes to see a dog on a short chain in the beating down sun or freezing cold sleet with no shelter. And that is why current laws exist (see the bottom half of this commentary). But, what about all the great things we do with dogs tethered?

SB 295/HB 940 proposes to make almost all tethering of a dog away from a person illegal unless the dog has shelter, shade and potable water. And, the owner cannot use a chain or weights. There are some proposed exceptions, but the exceptions are inadequate. Under the proposed law, the legislature will inadvertently make many Texas otherwise law-abiding citizens criminals.

Advanced Obedience Training. Tethering dogs, including leaving the dog unattended is a basic part of advanced obedience training, as well as training a dog that is either dog aggressive or dog reactive, not to react to the presence of another dog. A few details for those of you who would like them (otherwise skip the next bullets):
• Advanced Obedience Training. The next step in training after sit/down/stay is advanced obedience. Service dogs, trick dogs, agility dogs and dogs with behavior issues, as well as AKC CGC dogs, frequently receive advanced obedience training. Part of that training is to place a dog in a sit or a down and walk away. The dog is to hold that position until the person returns. The person should leave the area and return (of course you can spy on your dog at first to make sure all is well). You start that training by tethering your dog in public. Why in public? Because a dog is not trained until the dog is reliable, i.e. the dog will do what is asked with distractions all around. You start with tethering, because you don’t want the dog to run off.
• Exceptions do not allow for advanced obedience.
1. Substantially inconvenient. While I suppose it’s possible to haul shelter and water to provide for the dog during training, that is highly inconvenient.
2. Training as an exception. The proposed bill has an exception for training, but it is way too narrow. The training exception provides the training must be under a valid certification license. Training of Pets, service dogs, agility dogs is not conducted under “an activity conducted under a valid license.”
3. Some trainers use a chain for strong dogs, and some even use weights when out in public so NOT to damage a tree or scratch a post or otherwise interfere with the general public.

Fence Knocked Over. What happens when a fence is blown down and an owner doesn’t have a trolley system or a good way to quickly install a trolley system? No exception exists for allowing owners to tie out dogs in their yard before fences can be repaired. Texas weather includes tornados, hurricanes and strong straight-line winds as part of regular weather patterns. People knock down fences accidentally with their cars. In all of these situations, people may choose to put their dogs outside for thirty minutes or an hour unattended. Should they also be required to put out a shelter? How burdensome do you want to make this on people? Laws can be written so as not to make law-abiding citizens in violation. Using the stale excuse, “we wouldn’t enforce the law that way” is of little comfort to people who have the law applied against them.

Current laws are already burdensome, but can be enforced. If someone is actually placing their dog in harm’s way, the law is enforceable. And let’s not forget that many Texas cities are enacting their own tethering ordinances.
The argument that the current Texas animal cruelty statute does not have teeth is incorrect.
See below –

Current Law Allows for Enforcement and Animal Protection. See Below:
Sec. 821.077. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF DOG. (a) An owner may not leave a dog outside and unattended by use of a restraint that unreasonably limits the dog’s movement:
(1) between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.;
(2) within 500 feet of the premises of a school; or
(3) in the case of extreme weather conditions, including conditions in which:
(A) the actual or effective outdoor temperature is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit;
(B) a heat advisory has been issued by a local or state authority or jurisdiction; or
(C) a hurricane, tropical storm, or tornado warning has been issued for the jurisdiction by the National Weather Service.
(b) In this section, a restraint unreasonably limits a dog’s movement if the restraint:
(1) uses a collar that is pinch-type, prong-type, or choke-type or that is not properly fitted to the dog;
(2) is a length shorter than the greater of:
(A) five times the length of the dog, as measured from the tip of the dog’s nose to the base of the dog’s tail; or
(B) 10 feet;
(3) is in an unsafe condition; or
(4) causes injury to the dog.

Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 674 (H.B. 1411), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

Sec. 821.078. EXCEPTIONS. Section 821.077 does not apply to:
(1) a dog restrained to a running line, pulley, or trolley system and that is not restrained to the running line, pulley, or trolley system by means of a pinch-type, prong-type, choke-type, or improperly fitted collar;
(2) a dog restrained in compliance with the requirements of a camping or recreational area as defined by a federal, state, or local authority or jurisdiction;
(3) a dog restrained for a reasonable period, not to exceed three hours in a 24-hour period, and no longer than is necessary for the owner to complete a temporary task that requires the dog to be restrained;
(4) a dog restrained while the owner is engaged in, or actively training for, an activity that is conducted pursuant to a valid license issued by this state if the activity for which the license is issued is associated with the use or presence of a dog;
(5) a dog restrained while the owner is engaged in conduct directly related to the business of shepherding or herding cattle or livestock; or
(6) a dog restrained while the owner is engaged in conduct directly related to the business of cultivating agricultural products, if the restraint is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog.

Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 674 (H.B. 1411), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

These bills are nothing more than a first step by animal rights activists to further their agenda(documented) one step at a time and arm themselves with vague legislation to be used to make false accusations causing us to needlessly be taken to court!

And what is wrong with 24 hour to cure? Nothing!!!
How is this bill going to prevent cruelty? Like, are all animal cruelty offenders going to stop their activities
Just because of this bill???
Just like all ‘criminals’ will stop their criminal activities because we have laws to ‘prevent that’?
Yeah that’s really going to happen… NOT!

Also there is mention of exceptions for ‘licensed’ activities.
We don’t want to open that ‘can of worms’ and then be required to be ‘licensed’ to train our own dogs!

Please oppose SB 295 & HB 940!

Please see and read the following documented and footnoted article from the largest dog registry in the world – The American Kennel Club –
There are excellent talking points documented in this article!
I know this is long but this article should give you great insight as to why we are against more over-regulation.

Best regards,
Your credentials