Fort Worth To Require Intact Animal Permit

[livingdustmops]

The following article is posted on the AKC website...very interesting and it seems it is trying to hit many different areas. I wonder is this viable. I would like to hear what other people think and could this work?

Fort Worth To Require Intact Animal Permit

[Monday, August 10, 2009]
The City of Fort Worth is considering a variety of changes to their animal control ordinance and will hold a public hearing on the changes at their August 11th meeting. Concerned dog owners are encouraged to attend and to contact their city council member regarding their concerns. Please forward this on to other members of your club so that we can get as many people involved as possible.

The most significant changes are with regard to the new requirements for licensing and redemption of intact animals. All animals must be sterilized unless the owner purchases a $50 Intact Animal Permit. The fee is waived if the owner attends a responsible pet ownership class, but becomes $150 if the permit is not purchased voluntarily. Additionally the license for an unmicrochipped animal rises from $12 to $36 under the new ordinance.

A licensed intact animal that is picked-up by animal control may be redeemed intact one time, however if the animal is confiscated a second time, the animal must be sterilized. The AKC does not feel as though this provision is entirely fair as a second violation may occur years after the initial infraction and not be a true reflection of a habitually irresponsible owner. An otherwise responsible owner should not be penalized if an animal is accidentally let out by a meter reader, neighbor or even as the result of a natural disaster.

The proposal requires fences to be at least 4-feet tall for all dogs, 6 feet tall for dangerous dogs, and prohibits animals from being confined for a substantial portion of the day in an enclosure that does not provide 48 square feet per animal over six months old. These requirements are not reflective of any accepted animal husbandry standards, fail to take in to account the varying sizes and exercise needs of different breeds, and may prove to be a financial burden to responsible owners.

The city has not yet provided us with a copy of the draft ordinance so the following is summarized from the code compliance final recommendations. We will let you know if there are any major changes once the draft is released.

What You Can Do:

◦Contact the Mayor and your representative on the Fort Worth City Council. A map of the city council districts can be seen online at Welcome to the City of Fort Worth, Texas. A full list of their contact information is at the end of this email.
◦Attend the City Council Meeting

August 11th at 7pm
Council Chamber at City Hall
1000 Throckmorton St.
Fort Worth, TX 76102

Proposed Changes:

•Spay/Neuter and License Fees:
◦All animals must be sterilized unless the owner purchases a one-time $50 Intact Animal Permit or has a waiver from a veterinarian. Fee is per owner, not per animal. Fee is waived if the owner attends a responsible pet ownership class. The fee will be $150 if the owner does not voluntarily obtain the permit.
◦Allow reclaimed animals with a current city license to be redeemed intact on a first offense. Animals redeemed a second time would have to be sterilized even if they are licensed.
◦License fees: $12 for a one year license Reclaimed animals that are required to be sterilized would be either sterilized by the city or the owner would need to pay a $200 deposit which is refunded once proof is received that a private veterinarian has sterilized the animal.
◦Dog licenses are $12 for a 3-year license (if animal has a 3-year rabies shot and is microchipped). Currently the fee is $7/year, so it is less expensive if you get the 3-year license. The fee for an animal that is not microchipped is $36 annually.
◦Allow animal control officers in the field to issue a temporary 30 license for $36.
◦Require owners who have an unlicensed animal to pay a $100 late fee.
◦Offer spay/neuter, vaccination, micro-chipping and registration to qualifying citizens who are preparing to relinquish an animal in the hope that they will retain the animal.
•Dangerous Dog Ordinance:
◦Creates an "aggressive dog" designation defined as an animal that repeatedly engaged in any of the following behaviors when not provoked:
■While not at play or incidental to basic interaction attacks other domestic pets within its own enclosure.
■Attempts to climb, dog, chew through or otherwise attempts to escape from their enclosure in an attempt to attack, chase or harass a person or domestic animal.
■Bites a person who is lawfully and reasonably inside the animal’s enclosure.
◦Prohibit dogs declared dangerous in other jurisdictions from relocating to Fort Worth.
◦Require a $500 annual registration fee for dogs declared dangerous after the adoption of the new ordinance.
◦Seeks to provide free or reduced-cost spay/neuter services for aggressive dogs.
•Fencing, Enclosures and Unrestrained Animals:
◦Fences required to be minimum of 4-ft tall. Animal control director may approve a shorter fence.
◦Fences for dogs declared dangerous or aggressive must be 6-ft. Director may approve a shorter fence.
◦Prohibits animals being confined for a substantial portion of the day in an enclosure that does not provide 48 square feet per animal over six months old.
◦Allow the fine for an unrestrained animal to be up to $500.
◦Develop requirements for animal in unenclosed vehicles such as pick-up trucks.
•Allow staff to seize animals that determined to be tethered in violation of the existing cruelty law if they owners do not comply with an initial citation.
•Allow the director to offer half-price adoptions and lower adoption fees for senior citizens.
Fort Worth City Council

Mayor Mike Moncrief
Telephone: 817-392-6118
Fax: 817-392-6187
E-mail: mike.moncrief@fortworthgov.org

Mayor Pro-Tem Danny Scarth (District 4)
Telephone: 817-392-8804
Fax: 817-392-6187
E-mail: District4@fortworthgov.org

Councilmember Sal Espino (District 2)
Telephone: 817-392-8802
Fax: 817-392-6187
E-mail: District2@fortworthgov.org

Councilmember W.B. Zimmerman (District 3)
Telephone: 817-392-8803
Fax: 817-392-6187
E-mail: District3@fortworthgov.org

Councilmember Frank Moss (District 5)
Telephone: 817-392-8805
Fax: 817-392-6187
E-mail: District5@fortworthgov.org

Councilmember Jungus Jordan (District 6)
Telephone: 817-392-8806
Fax: 817-392-6187
E-mail: District6@fortworthgov.org

Councilmember Carter Burdette (District 7)
Telephone: 817-392-8807
Fax: 817-392-6187
E-mail: District7@fortworthgov.org

Councilmember Kathleen Hicks (District 8)
Telephone: 817-392-8808
Fax: 817-392-6187
E-mail: District8@fortworthgov.org

Councilmember Joel Burns (District 9)
Telephone: 817-392-8809
Fax: 817-392-6187
E-mail: District9@fortworthgov.org

[KimMee's Mom]

Don't even get me started on this- for two years at least-- bills and or city ordinances have been surfacing around the US- I believe that Louisville and Lexington Kentucky city ordances are such as above if not more severe. I've posted on this before. I believe some faction has an agenda and it is against people owning pets.


-----Original Message-----From: Responsible Pet Owners Alliance [mailto:TX-RPOA@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU] OnBehalf Of Responsible Pet Owners AllianceSent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:24 PMTo: TX-RPOA@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDUSubject:


Louisville Kennel Club to file lawsuit against Louisville KY TX-RPOA E-NewsFrom Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas.Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization,not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference.Permission granted to crosspost. January 12, 2007Normally RPOA sends out information on Texas and federal animal issues only, but since Albuquerque, NM, and Louisville, KY, have passed such onerousordinances, it behooves all of us to support the kennel clubs in these cities, who are filing lawsuits to prevent enforcement. If these ordinances are not blocked, they will spread like wildfire and in fact they alreadyhave and will continue to do so. Since when are bad ordinances passed and "then" become a work in progress?After signing the Louisville, KY, ordinance, Mayor Jerry Abramson had this to say: "Is it a perfect ordinance? I would submit to you that it is not. It is a work in progress." Eleven Republicans on the city council, the media, Louisville Kennel Club, League of Kentucky Sportsmen, American Kennel Club and many others asked the mayor to veto the measure, but he rejected that idea. The League said it is an effort to adopt an agenda advanced by animal-rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was influential in getting the ordinance passed. The League plans to join Louisville Kennel Club (and possibly other groups) in a lawsuit to block enforcement. The onerous ordinance passed on a strictly partisan split of votes with Republicans opposed to the ordinance and Democrats supporting it. WhileDemocratic council members say they are not likely to rescind the ordinance, some of them say changes are necessary. But one councilman says the changesand clarifications will probably fall short of what some would like. The Louisville Kennel Club says they may have lost this battle, but the war is far from over. They cancelled their January 21 Fun Match and it will berescheduled. But they ask that exhibitors do NOT boycott the upcoming 2007 Kentuckiana Cluster of Dog Shows, the largest show in the country, because funds will now be needed for the legal battle they are about to take on with the city. The Club has already spent $50,000 fighting the ordinance and it's too late to move the Cluster. They suggest exhibitors stay in a hotel/motel just outside Jefferson County within easy driving distance from the fairgrounds. Shop, buy gas, food, etc. outside Jefferson County. After they get home, send a letter or email to the metro council and the mayor stating why you did not stay in Louisville and how much money was lost to them as a result. Those who wish to make a statement may do so by taking one of the following actions:1. Enter, but don't show. 2. Enter, and show but buy a black armband in support of the Club's legislative fund to fight this anti-pet ordinance, andlet the Louisville Kennel Club know that you support a move to Lexington for the 2008 Show. 3) Enter, and show, but avoid all Louisville businesses! The ordinance has many objectionable provisions, including: All impounded dogs must be spayed/neutered. The Director has discretion to reduce fees/fines if you spay/neuter your animal. The Director cannot waivethe requirement to have your impounded animal altered before that animal may be released. If you own more than 3 dogs, and you live on less than 0.5 acres, you are in violation of the ordinance. There is no grandfather clause. If you own more than 7 dogs and you live on less than 2 acres, you are in violation of the ordinance. Again, no grandfather clause. Rescuers note: Animal welfare groups (ie rescue organizations) must have facilities which meet the standards for pet shops or boarding kennels.Animal Welfare Groups are required to pay a license fee which makes them subject to inspections. Vets are required to turn over their Rabies shot records to Louisville Metro Animal Services. They are also required to notify their clients of the provisions of the 94+ page ordinance. Animal Control officers can decide if you are "physically able" to control your dog -- if they don't think so, they can impound your dog. If you show your unaltered dog, and travel with it for more than 3 days, you must notify the Director as to the change in location of your unaltered dog.The owner of an unaltered dog shall not be changed without notification to the Director of Metro Animal Services. All unaltered dogs must be in an enclosure *approved in writing* by the Director. No unaltered dog can be on a leash more than 4 feet long. If you sell, give away, or board (yes, board) your unaltered dog, you must notify the Director. You may not purchase an unaltered dog without the written permission of the Metro Animal Services Director. All unaltered dogs must be microchipped. You may not keep your unaltered dog in a house in which the windows are open and only screens present to prevent the dog from exiting. If you have an unexpected litter, and you want to sell it, you may only have one unaltered animal (of ANY species) otherwise you will need a $300 AnimalDealer's license. Prong, chain and pinch collars are prohibited. Dissections in biology classes are prohibited. Nuisance Law: If any of your animals (not just dogs) "irritates" or "perturbs" anyone twice within a 5 year period, you will be forced to give up ALL of your animals and will be prohibited from owning animals again for 2 years. You must have your dog/cat re-vaccinated against rabies and re-licensed every time you remove it from a kennel/cattery. This includes boarding kennels. If you purchase an animal that was illegally advertised (because it needed a license or permit but did not have one) you are in violation. If you break any law (including walking your dog off leash) your dog can be impounded and must be altered before you may reclaim it. If you sell or give away a dog, cat, ferret, puppy, kitten, or kit, you must report the sale and the new owner's information to Louisville Metro AnimalServices within 10 days. If you accidentally injure an animal (say hit it with your car because it ran out in the street in front of you), you have committed animal cruelty and may be civilly penalized up to $1000. Exotic species (gerbils, parakeets, hamsters) must have careful health records consisting of the point of origin of the animal, medical history of said animal, date of sale, date of later transfer of ownership and these records must be maintained and available to Louisville Metro Animal Services upon request.

Any dog can be declared "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous" at the whim of the Metro Animal Services Director. This subjects the dog to enclosurerequirements and increased licensed fees and has a faulty appeal process. Please support the Louisville Kennel Club.



---------------------------------------------------------------

[KimMee's Mom]

I am pretty sure San Antonio has adopted a new city ordanance pertaining to pet ownership as has Houston and there was a House Bill up in Texas this year that stated any dog over 40lbs was deemed dangerous- it was called the ugly dog bill by some.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Milford Daily News
Taylor: Coming soon: 'Canine Americans'
By Truman Taylor/Syndicated columnist
The Providence Journal
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Taylor: Coming soon: 'Canine Americans' - Milford, MA - The Milford Daily News

A few weeks ago, not everybody knows, people who think that nonhuman
animals should have more rights, indeed, rights like those of the species
Called humans, gathered in Washington, D.C. It was their annual "Taking Action for
Animals" conference. About 200 more attendees than last year were there.

More than a few said they had come to reflect on all the major changes in
the animal-rights movement over the past few years. You could tell that
some things had changed. At this year's conference most of the people were
dressed in business-casual attire unlike in years past, when a lot looked as
if they were ready to take to the streets to throw red paint on ladies
wearing fur coats. Several who attended this year's conference commented on
how it had a more professional demeanor.

Some of the speakers said they didn't approve of the more blatant
demonstrations staged in the past by some animal-rights activists. They
claimed to be more interested now in cultivating activists who are educated and
well-organized professionals capable of calculated moves to further animal
rights.

Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States, seemed
to have some of those calculated moves in mind. He told the conference that
there's very little difference between humans and other animals that no one
should own animals in general just as no one should own other humans, that
Congress should pass animal-guardianship laws to replace our
animal-ownership laws.

Pacelle also suggested that we shouldn't call dogs dogs. We should be using
the term "Canine-Americans." Just as we identify people as Irish-Americans
or Italian-Americans. Pacelle thinks if we call dogs "Canine-Americans," it
would emphasize the importance of their rights, and of their innate
dignity.

We have had no response from German shepherds, Irish setters or Russian
wolfhounds on their thoughts about being called "Canine-Americans." And
leaders of the incoming Congress are silent on whether they might be for
animal-rights laws. They have to be careful not to offend what could become
a very large voting bloc Canine-Americans.
Article at:
Taylor: Coming soon: 'Canine Americans' - Milford, MA - The Milford Daily News

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: (210) 822-6763
Fax: (210) 822-9038
Website: www. responsiblepetowners. org

[KimMee's Mom]

I know these are old articles but just trying to let you all know this has been going on for awhile- we all need to start paying attention because before you know it- you won't have a pet



May 7, 2007

Senate Criminal Justice Committee

PO Box 12068

Austin, Texas 78711

FAX: (512) _______________________

To the Honorable Senate Criminal Justice Committee:

HB1355 (SB 411) which is to be heard by your Criminal Justice Committee (5/8/07) is the same bill that has already been considered in the Senate and which was sponsored by Sen. Shapleigh. There is nothing new about this bill and still has the same problems as before. I am against HB 1355/SB 411 as written because:

1. The punishments are too harsh and out of line with other crimes;

2. The wrong definition of "serious bodily injury is used"--should be the Penal Code definition, not the civil law definition because as written of the 6 Million Texas dog owners, every one of them could become a felon;

3. The bill should focus on prevention rather than being so harsh and have a prohibition on loose dogs that is enforced;

4. There should be exceptions for dogs that are legally off their owner premises like for working dogs on a ranch, hunting dogs or dogs in sanctioned shows or competitions, which is like the exception given for assistance dogs; and

5. Sec. 822.007 should be deleted so that any breed specific suggestions can be avoided.

I am also against any law that is Breed Specific. I am opposed to the addition of targeting any breed or breeds in this bill. All dogs and their owners should be treated equally under our laws.

I urge you to vote against HB1355/SB 411. Thank you.

[KimMee's Mom]

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.

[KimMee's Mom]

Opposed to HB 1982 or Vote NO on HB 1982.

Here is the link to HB 1982 to read yourself:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs...f/HB01982I.pdf
HB 1982: Breed Specific Legislation by Another Name

HB 1982 is Breed Specific Legislation without using that name. It targets dogs because of their “physical nature” if the dog is capable of causing serious injury. Most dogs are capable of causing serious injury. They have teeth and all dogs can bite.

The bill adds a defini tion of a “vicious dog” that subjects owners to the same requirements as those of a dog deemed dangerous without the dog ever being out of its own yard or even touching anyone.

In Dallas, Houston & San Antonio, it targets all 40 pounds or more and requires them to be kept in “secure enclosures” meant for dogs deemed dangerous. It also mandates they if they are out they must be on a leash in the immediate control of the handler. These means no dog parks, tracking, search & rescue, hunting, agility, or any competition or activity that the dog is not right beside the owner and on a leash.

Here is the definition of Vicious Dog according to the proposed HB 1982:

Sec. 822.041(6) "Vicious dog" means a dog that:
(A) because of the dog's physical nature and
vicious propensity is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury,

< /TD> as that term is defined by Section 822.001, or death to human beings
and constitutes a danger to human life or property;
(B) without reasonable provocation has
habitually behaved within the enclosure in which the dog is kept in
such a manner that the owner knows or should know that the animal is
likely to attack or bite;
(C) commits unprovoked acts while in the
enclosure in which the dog is kept, and those acts cause a person to
reasonably believe that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury
to that person; or
&nbs p; (D) acts in a highly aggressive manner while in
the enclosure in which the dog is kept and appears to a reasonable
person to be able to escape from the enclosure.



Your dog can be declared vicious based on his looks and what he does in an enclosure which means your yard.

If someone tells animal control they think your dog is vicious and they believe your dog will attack and cause them injury, your dog can be declared vicious even though it is in your own yard. This is a totally subjective standard and based entirely on things your dog does when contained on your property or in your house.

Here is all it takes to put you and your dog in the crosshairs of animal control for doing nothing other than barking in your own yard:

Sec. 822.0421. DETERMINATION THAT DOG IS DANGEROUS OR
VICIOUS. (a) If a person reports an incident described by Section
=0 A
822.041(2) or a fact or action described by Section 822.041(6), the
animal control authority may investigate the fact, action, or
incident. If, after receiving the sworn statements of any
witnesses, the animal control authority determines the dog is a
dangerous or vicious dog, it shall notify the owner of that fact.

This means that if a person reports that they think your dog fits any of the definitions of vicious dog in 822.041(6) above, then your dog can be declared dangerous regardless that it never got out of your yard! All a neighbor bully has to do is say the magic words to animal control.

I have tried, handled and consulted on Dangerous Dog cases all over Texas and can tell you that these cases are more about neighbors than dogs. For some people even the sight of an APBT, Rottie, GSD, Dobie, Akita, Malamute, Husky, Mastiff, or Chow Chow frightens them.

If your dog is declared vicious you are subjected to all of the same requirements that a dog that is out of its enclosure and bites someone has to follow. These state requirements in 822.042 inclu de registering with animal control, restraining dog under your immediate control, keeping dog in an “secure enclosure” (see legal definition below), getting a $100,000.00 insurance policy, and you must comply with local laws (many city/county requirement are terribly harsh including such things as putting a dangerous dog sign on the window of your car if your dog is in it, muzzling, etc.).

It only gets worse for dogs in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio (cities with 1M pop.) because any 40+ pound dogs in those cities have to do the following:

[KimMee's Mom]

ok I 've given you plenty to think about and I will shut up now

[QuickSilver]

I think the s/n laws with the "opt out" provisions are a very good idea. So many people don't bother to get their pets altered, and are very casual about them getting pregnant. This was you can have an unaltered pet, but you have to put some minimal thought into it.

I agree that it would be pretty tragic if a champion breed dog got out and was fixed before the owners were notified... on the other hand, what a great motivation to keep your pets safe!

Not sure about the whole fence idea.

The problem I see is that there's a face off between animal rights and breeders. Even reasonable laws are attacked because breeders say that any legislation at all gives animal rights groups a foot in the door to take away pet ownership rights altogether. In the end, of course, it is the animals that suffer.

[Nancy1999]

I'm all for it, many states are attempting this to cut down on the sport of dog fighting, neutered dogs don't make good fighters. I know it's a hassle for responsible breeders, but there is usually special clauses for them, and in this case, it sounds like there will be no fee, if they attend a responsible pet owner meeting. Texas has a huge problem with dog fighting, and it takes all of us, to help end it.

[cataholic]

Personally I hope it becomes a law in the entire country that all pets must be spayed and neutered, except show quality purebreed animals. There are enough animals dying in shelters everyday. And yes there are plenty of purebred dogs in shelters including yorkies.

[QuickSilver]

I think any blanket law mandating s/n will meet with strong resistance. I think the "opt out" idea is very important to engender support, and it seems so sensible to me. Right now, a lot of people don't bother to get their pets s/n'd because it takes (some) effort to do it. With a law like this, the default option becomes to get them s/n'd so you don't have to deal with going to a class.

[itzzbarb]

They are proposing a whole lot of things and makes me wonder just how they are going to assure getting the word out, then enforcing it. In a day where many don't take the newspaper anymore and get bills online rather than in the mail, how will they make the public aware of all of this? The cost to send mail to every person in the city would be outlandish, and not make sense. That pretty much leaves local TV news to inform the public. Who will determine who has a vicious dog and who will make sure every person with said dog has a 6 foot fence? I mean, this can go on and on. Are they only going to enforce laws on those who get caught? Will they rely on a tattling neighbor? Maybe I am being close minded, but I don't see how they can enforce all of this. I am not in favor of vicious breed dogs, am in favor of proper identification and vaccinations and s/n. For a city that is in big trouble financially, as Fort Worth is, I don't see how they can have the staff to put all of this new stuff in motion. Granted some income would be received as a result of the fees, but I doubt enough to make this any more than yet another big expense for a city already in the red. <stepping down off of my soapbox>

[PennysMum]

I'm appreciative of the fact that their definition of "dangerous" dogs is more reliant on past behaviors of the individual dog than on breed, size or other arbitrary standards.

The confinement rule is pretty sketchy. A lot of very responsible dog owners crate their dogs or keep them in runs or x-pens for a good portion of the day. I would hope that rule is just something they are putting on the books as something they could potentially use against large-scale commercial breeders.

As far as the fees for intact dogs are concerned-- that seems completely reasonable to me. If somebody can't afford $50 for a license for their intact dog, should they be breeding? Breeding incurs a LOT more costs than that if it is being done responsibly.