Since: Dec 10

La Porte, TX

#61 Oct 28, 2011
Chapter 821.051of the Texas Health and Safety Code provides the law for the treatment of animals in the state of Texas. Specifically, subchapter D, titled "Unlawful Restraint of Dog," stipulates the law for tethering. Tethering refers to the act of restraining a dog through the use of items like ropes, cables, leashes, tethers or other items that bind the dogs to an unmoving object, limiting their movement.

Overview
The aim of tethering laws is to protect the animals from the negative effects of tethering. Some of these effects include exposure to inclement weather, neglect, injuries and deprivation of social contact. Some of the things used in tethering the dogs might also harm them. For instance, the collars or chains might cause strangulation, or the collars might chafe their skin. In addition to the physical effects of tethering, it may also lead to changes in the dogs' behavior. For instance, tethered dogs may become more aggressive, since they may use aggression as a means of releasing pent-up energy.

Types of Unlawful Restraint
Section 821.077 of the Texas Health Code lists the conditions that are considered unlawful tethering. The law prohibits dog owners from leaving their dogs unattended outside with restraints that unreasonably limit their movement, or between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Dog owners may not leave their dogs outside in harsh weather conditions. Examples of such harsh conditions include when the temperature is too cold or hot, in a tropical storm, hurricane or when a tornado warning has been issued. Another unlawful restraint includes the use of choke, prong or pinch-type collars that have not been fitted properly to the dog. Dog owners may only use a restraint that is at least five times the dog's length.

Exceptions
An exception to these restrictions includes dogs that are restrained for reasonable periods of time. This period should not be more than three hours within a 24-hour period. Dogs that are restrained while the owner of the dog is herding cattle or other livestock, or engaged in activities related to agricultural cultivation, are not considered unlawfully restrained. This type of restraint is only acceptable if it is meant to protect the dogs from danger. Another exception is a dog that is restrained while the owner is engaged in a temporary activity that requires the restraint of the dog. Dogs may also be restrained in accordance with federal, state or local laws relating to recreational or camping areas.

Penalties
Anyone who violates the law prohibiting the tethering of dogs will be punished according to the circumstances surrounding the offense. If the offender is a repeat offender, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 and 180 days in a county jail. Another thing that may increase the severity of the punishment is the number of dogs involved. If it is a first-time offender, the offense may be classified as a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to $500 in fines.

“Trying to be civil with idiots”

Since: Oct 09

Sarajevo, Bosnia

#62 Oct 28, 2011
Why dont we just enforce that law?

Did Zemanek actually propose an ordinance where a law was already in place? That seems foolish or am i missing something?

Since: Dec 10

La Porte, TX

#63 Oct 28, 2011
PART 1

Subchapter D. Unlawful Restraint of Dog
821.076. Definitions In this subchapter:
(4)“Restraint” means a chain, rope, tether, leash, cable, or other device that attaches a dog to a stationary object or trolley system.
CREDIT(S)Added by Acts 2007,80th Leg.,ch.674,§1 ,eff.Sept. 1, 2007.
§ 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.
CREDIT(S)Added by Acts 2007,80th Leg.,ch.674,§1 ,eff.Sept. 1, 2007.
§ 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.
CREDIT(S)Added by Acts 2007,80th Leg.,ch.674,§1 ,eff.Sept. 1, 2007.

Since: Dec 10

La Porte, TX

#64 Oct 28, 2011
PART 2

§ 821.079. Penalty
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly violates this subchapter.
(b) A peace officer or animal control officer who has probable cause to believe that an owner is violating this subchapter shall provide the owner with a written statement of that fact. The statement must be signed by the officer and plainly state the date on which and the time at which the statement is provided to the owner.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person is provided a statement described by Subsection (b) and fails to comply with this subchapter within 24 hours of the time the owner is provided the statement. An offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person violates this subchapter and previously has been convicted of an offense under this subchapter. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.
(e) If a person fails to comply with this subchapter with respect to more than one dog, the person's conduct with respect to each dog constitutes a separate offense.
(f) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.
CREDIT(S)Added by Acts 2007,80th Leg.,ch.674,§1,eff.Sept 1, 2007.
Maybe

Houston, TX

#65 Oct 28, 2011
Maybe Councilman Z will pass a City ordinance against murder next?
enuflaws

Houston, TX

#66 Oct 28, 2011
Thanks Norma for repeating all of this that I covered on Tuesday this week. ( go back and look at my post) You were at the meeting and know that this is all a political matter started by Regina Reiley and her friend Zemanek. He has it in for the business guys at 603 Broadway who sued the city and won. You were there when they went into executive session last Monday and the city was told to settle the legal matter with the guys at 603. You are correct we need no more laws. Go tell that to the council at the meeting next time Good for you.
watcher

Houston, TX

#67 Oct 28, 2011
Want my town back wrote:
Why dont we just enforce that law?
Did Zemanek actually propose an ordinance where a law was already in place? That seems foolish or am i missing something?
Did you see the 2 gentlemen dressed in blue at the council meeting last Monday ? They were lawyers for the business at 603 that the city lost to. Look at the minutes of the Meeting. They are the guys with the dog that is being used for a pawn in the dog chaining matter. RR is in on it. They call it the revenge of Z.
superdawg

La Porte, TX

#68 Oct 28, 2011
Maybe wrote:
Maybe Councilman Z will pass a City ordinance against murder next?
Did you say brenda.... uh I mean Councilman Z will pass an ordinance against murder?

“I call it like I see it...”

Since: Jan 09

...and I see it like it is!

#69 Oct 28, 2011
superdawg wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you say brenda.... uh I mean Councilman Z will pass an ordinance against murder?
I'd certainly hate to be charged by the City with murder.

Of course if I ever was... I could only hope that Clark Askins would be the prosecutor!!!

red dawn

Crosby, TX

#70 Oct 28, 2011
you will never be charged with being sane.

“I call it like I see it...”

Since: Jan 09

...and I see it like it is!

#71 Oct 28, 2011
Seriously, laugh all y'all want... this is no laughing matter.

If there is a state law that covers the chaining of dog... and the state refuses to enforce the law, then why should we not pass a local ordinance to handle it on a LOCAL level?

We should not look to other Government to handle something OUR OWN Government can handle.

This is about the animals.

You can say it is about a feud... whatever... this is something that has been a long time coming.

They are living, breathing, thinking, feeling, intelligent entities... and deserve to live a healthy positive life.

These animals deserve love, caring and companionship... and if you can't give that, or you are unable to give that to an animal, then you don't need an animal.

Case closed.

“super hero”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#72 Oct 28, 2011
but if you had a 3yr old son mauled by a dog thats been on a chain because it needs to.then you would have different opinion.amen moderators have that power to delete.mine was too.i dont care.

Since: Jul 07

Houston area

#73 Oct 28, 2011
It is a defense to prosecution if the dog is not observed by an ACO or police officer for the entire time it is in violation. The reason is that all the owner of the dog has to do is state that the dog was brought inside while it was not being observed. So basically the officer has to watch this animal for the entire time of the period stated in the law. There are not enough officers to do this, and this is why the law is basically “hollow” when it comes to enforcement. Second point I would like to remind everyone. There has been a lot of talk about good dogs being put to death because they will end up at the shelter. It is proven science and fact that dogs that are chained are 87% more likely to be involved in an unprovoked attacks on a human, which usually is a child (ASPCA statistical study (pub.2009 / DVM. McCrane). These dogs are more aggressive, territorial, and are more likely to have sustained some sort of injury due to the extended chaining. Animals that end up in the shelter are not all destined for euthanasia. The shelter has a very good adoption program; offsite adoption events (PetCo-Baytown / Triumphant Tails Rescue events in Seabrook) as well as working with many rescue organizations from all over the state of Texas as well as out of state agencies. The intent of this anit-chaining ordinance is to improve the overall lives of our animals in the city that are spending their lives at the end of a chain or rope. Most chained dogs spend their days with minimal contact or interaction from their owners. Most are exposed to heartworm positive mosquitoes without the benefit of preventative medication. Many are aggressive and will challenge anyone who comes into their areas without regard to it being an adult or child. Are there owners out there who chain their dogs that are model owners? Yes there are, but most do not fit this category. Spending one’s life on a chain has been proven to be an existence that has more negatives then positive. What our city is doing is trying to help improve the conditions that our animals are forced to live in. Is it easier to put your animal on a chain rather than constructing the proper pen? Maybe. But we must focus of the long term life of that animal and the environment that the people that are around this animal must share. This is a moral decision that if you own an animal you should do the right thing. Yes there are laws (both at the state level as well as county and city) that are being enforced by the Animal Control, but the current chaining law has a huge flaw and that is if the ACO doesn’t watch that animal for the entire time that it is in violation then the case is not enforceable. The city is closing that gap and holding people accountable for how they treat their animals. I am sure some will balk at this new change, but this will improve the lives of so many animals and give our Animal Control the ability to enforce an ordinance that has the animal(s) best interest at hand. I encourage everyone to go to the shelter, see what those folks have to work with every day. Sign up to be a volunteer. Our ACO’s have a saying, and I feel it says a lot about them.“We may be small in size, but we are big on mission”. These men and women put it on the line every day to help the animals in our city as well as their owners. Before you pass judgment on this new ordinance go down there and see the animals that have had a poor life. Many have spent their lives on chains with little or minimal human contact from their owners. Our ACO’s care for and help improve all of the animals in their charge, and some of those chained and abused dogs get the first compassion and love when they are with our ACO’s.

“I call it like I see it...”

Since: Jan 09

...and I see it like it is!

#74 Oct 28, 2011
RangerDoc wrote:
It is a defense to prosecution if the dog is not observed by an ACO or police officer for the entire time it is in violation. The reason is that all the owner of the dog has to do is state that the dog was brought inside while it was not being observed. So basically the officer has to watch this animal for the entire time of the period stated in the law. There are not enough officers to do this, and this is why the law is basically “hollow” when it comes to enforcement. Second point I would like to remind everyone. There has been a lot of talk about good dogs being put to death because they will end up at the shelter. It is proven science and fact that dogs that are chained are 87% more likely to be involved in an unprovoked attacks on a human, which usually is a child (ASPCA statistical study (pub.2009 / DVM. McCrane). These dogs are more aggressive, territorial, and are more likely to have sustained some sort of injury due to the extended chaining. Animals that end up in the shelter are not all destined for euthanasia. The shelter has a very good adoption program; offsite adoption events (PetCo-Baytown / Triumphant Tails Rescue events in Seabrook) as well as working with many rescue organizations from all over the state of Texas as well as out of state agencies. The intent of this anit-chaining ordinance is to improve the overall lives of our animals in the city that are spending their lives at the end of a chain or rope. Most chained dogs spend their days with minimal contact or interaction from their owners. Most are exposed to heartworm positive mosquitoes without the benefit of preventative medication. Many are aggressive and will challenge anyone who comes into their areas without regard to it being an adult or child. Are there owners out there who chain their dogs that are model owners? Yes there are, but most do not fit this category. Spending one’s life on a chain has been proven to be an existence that has more negatives then positive. What our city is doing is trying to help improve the conditions that our animals are forced to live in. Is it easier to put your animal on a chain rather than constructing the proper pen? Maybe. But we must focus of the long term life of that animal and the environment that the people that are around this animal must share. This is a moral decision that if you own an animal you should do the right thing. Yes there are laws (both at the state level as well as county and city) that are being enforced by the Animal Control, but the current chaining law has a huge flaw and that is if the ACO doesn’t watch that animal for the entire time that it is in violation then the case is not enforceable. The city is closing that gap and holding people accountable for how they treat their animals. I am sure some will balk at this new change, but this will improve the lives of so many animals and give our Animal Control the ability to enforce an ordinance that has the animal(s) best interest at hand. I encourage everyone to go to the shelter, see what those folks have to work with every day. Sign up to be a volunteer. Our ACO’s have a saying, and I feel it says a lot about them.“We may be small in size, but we are big on mission”. These men and women put it on the line every day to help the animals in our city as well as their owners. Before you pass judgment on this new ordinance go down there and see the animals that have had a poor life. Many have spent their lives on chains with little or minimal human contact from their owners. Our ACO’s care for and help improve all of the animals in their charge, and some of those chained and abused dogs get the first compassion and love when they are with our ACO’s.
Thank you Ranger Doc, cooler heads always prevail.

“Trying to be civil with idiots”

Since: Oct 09

Sarajevo, Bosnia

#75 Oct 28, 2011
How do we plan to get around observing the dog? This is a very big loophole without many ways to remedy it. the only way i see around is to limit the length of time to an acceptable observing period. But then it would have to be really low and the new ordinance would start targeting people it was unattended for.

This is why i would really like to see what is being drafted. We can start identifying different issues and ideas. That way we have something plausible.

“I call it like I see it...”

Since: Jan 09

...and I see it like it is!

#76 Oct 28, 2011
Want my town back wrote:
How do we plan to get around observing the dog? This is a very big loophole without many ways to remedy it. the only way i see around is to limit the length of time to an acceptable observing period. But then it would have to be really low and the new ordinance would start targeting people it was unattended for.
This is why i would really like to see what is being drafted. We can start identifying different issues and ideas. That way we have something plausible.
Like I mentioned before, I think it would probably be best to leave it simply written and enforceable at the discretion of animal control.

They know when an animal is being abused.

What do you think, Doc?

Since: Jul 07

Houston area

#77 Oct 29, 2011
The enforcement should be at the discretion of the ACO, based on the total evidence. The time loophole will be solved if the ordinance prohibits chaining at all times. When we have a state law that falls short in the ability to enforce it, then it is up to the local municipalities to close the loop and ensure fair enforcement. Again, this will not be easy, but the animals are trusting us to stand up and do the right thing for them.

Since: Dec 10

La Porte, TX

#78 Oct 29, 2011
FACT:
I have watched a beautiful Lab live on a chain since he was a puppy!
Chained during the day... caged in the garage at night!
He was "supposed" to be a pet for the kids!
These young kids were terrified of him! Not because he was mean but because he was always trying to get to them because he was wanting to PLAY!(Imagine that!!)
Nine years later, he is still on a chain... still gets put in a cage at night!
The only contact (if you can call it that) he gets is when he's transferred to and from!
Yes! He is fed and watered! There have been times though that he had no water! Anyone with a dog/s know after a while that the have a 'languange'! They have different barks for different things! When I notice him barking a certain way, I know that there is probably something wrong!
I have found a snake (not deadly) on the patio... have unwound him when he got completely wound around the brick column of the patio... unwound his chain when it would get so wound up he couldn't even get to his water!
He has NEVER been walked... STILL craves attention... STILL wants to play, but he doesn't know how, so when these girls (teenagers now) take his food to him they carry something in their hand to keep him from jumping up on them!
This is a nice family.,. would never do anything that was abusive (in their eyes) to this beautiful animal! There has only been one family member that was abusive to this dog the few times he was around!

Since: Mar 11

Houston, TX

#79 Oct 29, 2011
My dog is sweet! He din hurt nobody.
Simple

United States

#80 Oct 29, 2011
Print off this page, hi-light your comment, place it in their mailbox and on their car windshields. Sometimes ignorance can be corrected when one is embarrassed at their obvious stupidity.

Norma E wrote:
FACT:
I have watched a beautiful Lab live on a chain since he was a puppy!
Chained during the day... caged in the garage at night!
He was "supposed" to be a pet for the kids!
These young kids were terrified of him! Not because he was mean but because he was always trying to get to them because he was wanting to PLAY!(Imagine that!!)
Nine years later, he is still on a chain... still gets put in a cage at night!
The only contact (if you can call it that) he gets is when he's transferred to and from!
Yes! He is fed and watered! There have been times though that he had no water! Anyone with a dog/s know after a while that the have a 'languange'! They have different barks for different things! When I notice him barking a certain way, I know that there is probably something wrong!
I have found a snake (not deadly) on the patio... have unwound him when he got completely wound around the brick column of the patio... unwound his chain when it would get so wound up he couldn't even get to his water!
He has NEVER been walked... STILL craves attention... STILL wants to play, but he doesn't know how, so when these girls (teenagers now) take his food to him they carry something in their hand to keep him from jumping up on them!
This is a nice family.,. would never do anything that was abusive (in their eyes) to this beautiful animal! There has only been one family member that was abusive to this dog the few times he was around!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

La Porte Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The San Jacinto Monument 40 min Elaine 3
Nonstop itch! All over body 5 hr Norma E 2
ISIS at the border. Thanks Obama! 22 hr fubar 17
Cruz raise $31m in three days. Thu Thinktank 32
Heavy Fed is dead Thu Big bad john 33
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Apr 22 Fart 798
MLK Historic Bridge Crossing Apr 22 josh 19
More from around the web

La Porte People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]