Texas HB 2001 No dogs on chains, Kennels 10'x15' min - Page 3

link is at the top to see the bill in its entirety. 

What does this mean?

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; a dog restrained while the owner is engaged

More legislation is not what responsible people need.  It will not be a deterent  for those that are not responsible.  Please think this through.  Take a minute and play devils advacate.  Look at where it can go, maybe not today, but in the hands of those that are not qualified to make decisions for our dogs.  Way too many loose ends in this.  Once it is done, you cannot take it back.  This type of legislation only opens the door for the peta mentality. 

One question I have, what does the human race have in common with  Lemmings?

wuzzup:

click on the text box and hit the enter key

then you can start typing and it will show up........

This kind of a bill is the kind supported and possibly even written by HSUS. They are a big, multi-million dollar lobbying / fundraising organization. They pander to the bunny huggers and the animal control enforcement industry. Think about it.. More laws to enforce and stiffer penalties makes more work for dog catchers and lawyers and probation officers, etc. We do not have lobbyists.. They do! And, this sort of law is the result. These things don't "just happen". They are carefully orchestrated, and always with an economic goal and agenda. Bottom line is, that you will PAY in one way or another. If you cannot afford to have a bigger property, pay for mandatory licensing, retrofit your existing kennel equipment, then you will just be cut out, or you will go underground and take your chances.

In January of 2000, I actually attended an HSUS expo in Las Vegas. I sat in on a seminar called "Grassroots Lobbying" by Wayne Pacelle (now president of HSUS). He was calling for the formation of two captain-led teams in each senatorial district in the US. The purpose of this was ostensibly to form "grassroots" organizations to push what was really HSUS's national agenda. Many say that this agenda involves the final end to the breeding of purebred dogs and all domestic animals. This would be correct, if we can go by their words, because the key AR people such as Pacelle have actually been documented in making such statements. To me, I think that the use of local groups to push a national agenda in state legislatures is fraudulent, but HSUS would not be the only "non profit" to do it, nor the first. Frankly, until people wise up and stop being so naive, we will continue to get our pockets picked while we are mesmerized by the puppet show. 

ARs know that they cannot force people to stop eating meat, nor to cease breeding purebred pets. They have to do it incrementally, by using regulations which will only increase until no one can possibly meet the requirements or pay the expenses of meeting them. This bit of legislation is precisely how they will end the breeding of purebred dogs. They can also revisit this law, if it is passed, in subsequent legislative sessions, stepping up and increasing the requirements, tightening the noose until it chokes all of us. 

Not only is the agenda one having to do with zealotry, but it has some big economic payoffs for key players, if it is passed. By regulating the production, sale and ownership of pets, they can turn a cash-negative business (the sale of re-run mongrels and purebreds) into a highly profitable one. There will be no place to go for an alternative! You want a dog? You go through the animal control / humane agency, and a high cost and meticulous screening process, or you go without! THAT's what they have in mind, and they are actually using the law enforcement and legislative / regulatory processses to give themselves an unfair trade advantage! Does anyone see this? 

Once it starts, you won't be able to stop it. And, it will only get worse. Trust me.. I have spent much of the last ten years studying the AR movement and all of it's methods. I know whereof I speak.  

You are so right, DDR-DSH!  This bill, and all others like it, isn't about whether the dog is happier on a chain, or in a 10x15 kennel as opposed to a 7x14...It's all about forcing more and more people to give up their domestic animals.  

Hypothetical scenario:  Maybe I don't fight the law on fighting dogs, because I don't fight my dogs.  No big deal.  The comes the law on breeding dogs and spaying dogs, and I don't argue because I don't breed dogs and my beloved pets are already fixed, so who cares?  Then comes the law against chaining dogs, but I don't worry because I don't chain my dogs; they are my best friends, and are in the house or kenneled when I'm gone, so whatever is fine by me.  Then comes the law wherein you can't have more than x amount of dogs, but that's okay, because I only have three, since three dogs are all I can train and love at once.  Then comes a law that says that kenneling is cruel, and it's not a big deal because although my dogs don't all get along the best, I can keep them separated with crates, or by putting them in different rooms.  Then comes a law against crating dogs, or isolating them in any way, except for medical reasons, or whatever... At this point, my dogs have been seized and have been put into the county animal shelter, where they await a death sentence, and I've lost everything just trying to take good care of my dogs...Get my drift?  The more restrictive the laws become, the worse the situation becomes, and the more dogs that will be dumped in the pounds.  Although a good breeder will take back all of her puppies, the simple fact is that unless you're wealthy, you can't afford to house a huge number of dogs, and local laws may prevent you from doing so, even if you can afford it.

As so many of us already know, (and some refuse to see), the AR movement is all about "liberating" animals from human slavery, by whatever means necessary.  Killing them is preferable to kenneling or chaining them; failing that, all animals need to be sterilized so that they cannot continue to 'overpopulate' the world.  Before the rescue people jump all over me, let me just say that yes, there are too many dogs and cats in shelters nationwide.  I understand that.  But PETA and HSUS aren't interested in keeping animals out of shelters.  They are interested only in eradicating all of them, by whatever means necessary.  PETA's nutcase leader, Ingrid Newkirk, made the statement that "...humans are a cancer on the earth".  Does anyone actually think that these people give a hoot about ANIMALS?  The answer is no, they don't.  The animals are just a means to an end.

There is no such thing as animal rights.  There is no such thing as HUMAN RIGHTS.  Every time another law is passed, we humans, and our animals, get squeezed a little bit tighter.  We've lost so many rights already.  What do people do who can't afford to do whatever the law requires?  Should they just turn their dogs in to the shelter and become part of the problem?  Or should anyone making less than $50,000, or living in a place where they don't have room to build a kennel, or whatever, just accept that they aren't good enough to own a dog, and leave it at that?

I think it's time the American people woke up, got off their backsides, and reminded the government of it's job.  And that job is certainly not to put a financial chokehold on it's people in the form of illegal taxation and un-necessary controls.  If you want more restrictive laws, please go to a country where that is the norm.  Get out of the Land of the FREE and the Home of the Brave.

Crys