Animal Control Legislation

While we have been struggling with animal control issues here, a new legislative session has convened and numerous bills related to animals have been introduced. ( Check the Texas Legislature Online.) Some of them relate directly to our ongoing problems.

HB 3180 and its companion SB 1910 cover commercial dog and cat breeders and dog and cat dealers. There are some good points to the bill, but there is likely to be some confusion because the definition of a commercial breeder is different than the federal definition of a commercial breeder. It also includes a definition of hobby breeder which is different than what I would prefer, but will work in my recommendations. Our current zoning ordinance definition of animal kennel would include commercial breeders and dealers by implication. If this bill passes, we need to either update the animal kennel definition to include commercial breeders and dealers, or specifically reference commercial breeders and dealers in the code of ordinances. There are also new requirements on buyers rights, which are probably overdue and requirements for veterinarian inspections which are needed. I think that setting 11 unaltered females as the threshold for a commercial breeder may not be the best way to separate commercial breeders from hobby breeders but it's probably the most likely to succeed politically. The difference in the Federal and proposed Texas definitions is not likely to have much effect on our local animal control issues.

HB 2001 and its companion SB 634 covers the restraint of dogs. It effectively eliminates the tieing out of dogs, (exceptions for camping, agriculture, training) and it adds a 150 sq ft minimum enclosure size. For reasons I stated in " Enclosing a Problem", I think this bill will cause more problems than it solves. It would eliminate the need for the original enclosure proposal that was brought before council, but I really can't support it.

We need to keep following these bills. They will impact how the city does animal control, but they really don't have that much impact on my recommendations. The breeders bill will give us a definition of "Hobby Breeder", and will add some record keeping, notification, and buyers rights requirements that fit in well with a "Know your seller" campaign. It does appear that some space requirements will be created if the breeders bill passes, but those will only apply to commercial breeders and dealers.

Overall, there are currently 70 bills dealing with animals before the Texas Legislature. There are about 11 that I will be following that might be relevant to our local animal control. There are others I am likely to be commenting on in the future, but click on the Check the Texas Legislature Online link I provided earlier, and see for your self.

Problems by the numbers

Last Tuesday, another update to the animal control ordinances was put before the City council, and after much heated discussion passed first reading with basically no changes. What passed is really heavily flawed and, at least according to the members I have talked to, not really what the advisory committee or the Animal Services Board intended. Lots of mistakes were made before we got here and I am disappointed that they weren't caught before this went before Council.

I'm disappointed in myself for not paying enough attention and doing the research and analysis I have done in the past. I was at the last ASB meeting, and should have paid more attention when they covered the definitions. Instead of the language I expected (offers for sale or trade) in the definition of a breeder was "sells, trades, or gives away," which is not what I had originally heard. The definitions were covered something like "Anyone have a problem with the definitions?" and then we started tackling the wording of the ordinances. The meeting started late. There was not a quorum at the beginning, and the Animal Services Director was calling members to try to get one there for the meeting. There was a quorum about 15 minutes later, and we started discussing the numbers, etc.. Some changes were made, and they agreed to put the changes to the council in three parts. Staff was supposed to make it into 3 proposals and clean up the legal language. I am disappointed in myself for not noticing some of the problem, such as the lack of the term "offers" in the definitions. Granted, I am not part of either the advisory committee or the ASB, but I do try to pay attention, and I should have looked and listened closer. I will try to do better in the future.

I want to critique these proposals in the reverse order they were presented. I will start with the "Multi-pet" permit. I opposed this one from the beginning and stated that at the ASB meeting. It is an unnecessary burdensome extra layer of bureaucracy. Granted, there is currently no fee envisioned, but that doesn't mean it's free. It takes resources for animal services to print, distribute, collect, process and store all of the possible permits. It takes time and transportation for the citizen who owns multiple pets to comply with this proposal. Looking at what it costs to process similar paperwork, we are probably talking in the range of $20 to $50 per permit to process this redundant paperwork. The reason given by the proponents of this proposal is that it gives animal control something they can charge someone with on a complaint. Again, I say that it's redundant. There is already an ordinance requiring pets to be licensed and vaccinated. You can be sure that an owner that doesn't do a free permit will not have all his pets licensed and vaccinated. If you find someone with 8 altered pets and no permit, there will already be 8 citations for no license and 8 citations for no vaccinations.

There is also a problem with this proposal when it comes to rescuers. It states that all of a multi-pet owners dogs and cats must be altered. What does a rescuer do when the 8 ^th animal they want to rescue is a pregnant female? Do we suddenly require them to get a breeders permit? We will wait to discuss the problems of disposing the expected offspring to a later part of the discussion.

Lastly, there is the problem of inspecting a private residence unless there is a complaint or information that there is a problem. There are hundreds of years of common law precedent and tradition that a governments police powers can be broadly used to inspect, and regulate those engaged in business and commercial enterprises. They can inspect Joes kitchen any time they are open with little to no notice. They can't inspect grandmas kitchen unless they have a warrant or have probable cause that a serious crime is in progress. Businesses waive some of their rights for the privilege of operating a business and making money in our city. We shouldn't even contemplate requiring citizens to waive rights just so they can own a few dogs.

I think I will let this sink in for a while before I comment on the other two proposals. I need a break and a chance for my blood pressure to go back down. I still have a lot to say on this issue.

Eye on the Snakepit

Now that the Legislature has removed the budgetary logjam, things in the Austin Snakepit are getting lively. I spent much of Saturday strolling through the Texas Legislature Online site, thought I would report on items of local interest I found. The site, www.capitol.state.tx.us , is well worth one's time, very user friendly and it even lets one put any given bill on e-mail alert every time that bill moves. For background, HB is a House Bill, SB a Senate bill, HJR or SJR, the JR is Joint Resolution, required for Constitutional Amendments. ED is Eminent Domain and Viagra has no effect on it.

The local city charter review is in progress, and I am confident limiting eminent domain will make it on the charter ballot. After the Kelo decision, eminent domain limits are popping up in Austin like flowers after an early spring rain. My favorite is HJR 11, by Frank Corte, a Constitutional Amendment which would limit ED to public use, no transfer to another private owner, AND require the entity exercising ED to present “clear and convincing evidence” of the necessity of a particular seizure. As it should be. Our Senator Robert Duncan has SJR 3, a good Constitutional Amendment. It would require any future grant of ED from the Legislature to a local entity be passed by a 4/5ths, recorded vote majority, and invalidate any such grant previously given, meaning existing ED power is NOT grandfathered, but must be re-applied for under the 4/5ths rule. HJR 30 is another Constitutional Amendment requiring the state to grant the original owner of seized property first chance at buying back any land seized, but not used, by the state after twenty years, at no more than original compensation given.

Just a few of the more notable, and passable offerings follow. HB 1495 would require the Attorney General to formulate a “Landowner's Bill of Rights, “in plain English and posted to the OAG website”.


HB 1387 would limit ED by School Boards, they would have to provide impact studies and evidence that all viable options to purchase land in a voluntary transaction have been exhausted before filing for condemnation.

HB 252 is one of my favorites, and bearing the name of the Land & Resources Management Committee Chair Anna Mowery, would seem to have good prospects. This bill says that local zoning changes may not decrease the value of the affected property by more than 10% unless the zoning entity is willing to move to ED condemnation and compensation. It includes in consideration collateral damage to contiguous, but unrezoned property belong to the same owner and provides compensation for legal costs of a prevailing appealant. These are pretty much the cream of a 56 bill crop, but by no means the only worthwhile ones out there. One thing that did surprise me on ED bills, none I have found directly require the taxable evaluation of a property be used as baseline floor for the compensation offered. One of the nastier results of the Kelo decision, one of the affected property owners was only given $150,000 for property New London had cheerfully taxed at an evaluation of $240,000 for 10 years. Seems a simple proposition to me, if the property is worth x when the city's hand is out to take, it should still be worth at least x when that hand extends to give.

HB 1678 is a modified version of a bill Gov. Perry vetoed last session, providing for more use of probation in place of prison time for non-violent felons. Yes, this largely means drug offenders, but no, I don't regard it as “soft on crime” so much as way softer on our wallet. Prison time is horrendously expensive. When one considers that in inmates per 100,000 Texas has an incarceration rate 10 times that of Communist China, the possibility we need to rethink the system comes to mind.

SB 3 will be worth watching, it and its House companion bills move many elements of the Regional Water Planning we have been developing for over a decade from recommendation to statute. There will no doubt be amendments along the way, but needless to say, this package is critical to West Texas and bears watching. Something based on this will almost assuredly pass, this has the big dogs behind it. High on my “alert” list.

Our new Representative Drew Darby has done well, landing a plum appointment to the critical Appropriations Committee. In that he voted for a recorded vote in the Speaker's election, I hope he will support HJR 77, a Constitutional Amendment requiring recorded votes on all bills and resolutions. As befits a freshman Representative, his docket of proposals is modest. One to enhance the legal penalty for defrauding people on charitable donations reflects a local case and closes a loophole that needs closing. He also authored HB 1617, which would amend the Economic Development Corp. act to allow a person not a city resident to be appointed as a director of COSADC. It amends the current 20,000 population limit on this to 100,000. The existing exemption allows smaller towns to use county residents to fill unpaid positions, quite reasonable. I wasn't aware San Angelo had any difficulty seating seven COSADC members.

I post this bearing in mind Mark Twain's caution that, “No man's property or liberty is secure so long as the Legislature is in session.” Humor aside, Texas really does have some very good people in Austin, but there are rascals and mere incompetents as well. Never hurts to keep an eye on them. Feel free to contact them. Listening to us is in the job description.