July 20, 2026, 11:46:32 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: ETHD....WE'RE ALL ABOUT HOG DOGGIN!
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: UPDATE HB998, $100,000 in insurance for dogs that are not contained at all times  (Read 3177 times)
Silverton Boar Dogs
Hog Master
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


View Profile
« on: March 11, 2011, 05:13:48 pm »

***UPDATE***

I called McClendons office commenting on this bill and giving TDHA's opinion on the impact to hunting and working dogs across the state. After talking in circles for 15 minutes, the aid did say that this was only intended to apply to dogs in cities and that there had all ready been changes made to the wording in committee. There is a class action law suit underway regarding this bill as well.

This bill is in committee and dosen't need to get out, make some calls.

The added language is supposed to exempt dogs used or worked outside of city's but I will believe it when I see it. More updates to come.
 
We need some pressure on the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee found here:

  http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Committees/MembershipCmte.aspx?LegSess=82R&Chamber=H&CmteCode=C330

This bill is in this committee and a phone call to all members would help. Encourage them to vote NO on HB 998.

Thanks,
Paul T


82R2547 JSC-D
  


  By: McClendon H.B. No. 998
  
  
   A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
   AN ACT
   relating to the civil liability of and insurance requirements for  
   owners of certain dogs; providing penalties.
          BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
          SECTION 1.  Subchapter A, Chapter 822, Health and Safety  
   Code, is amended by adding Section 822.008 to read as follows:
          Sec. 822.008.  CIVIL LIABILITY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR  
   CERTAIN DOGS.  (a)  This section applies only to a male dog that:
                (1)  has not been neutered;
                (2)  weighs 20 pounds or more; and
                (3)  is not restrained at all times:
                      (A)  on a leash in the immediate control of a  
   person; or
                      (B)  in a secure enclosure.
          (b)  The owner of a dog described by Subsection (a) is liable  
   for damages to property and for death or bodily injury to a person  
   resulting from an attack by the dog.
          (c)  The owner of a dog described by Subsection (a) shall  
   maintain liability insurance coverage in an amount of not less than  
   $100,000 for each occurrence for liability for damages to property  
   and for death or bodily injury to a person caused by the dog.
          (d)  A person commits an offense if the person violates  
   Subsection (c). An offense under this subsection is a Class C  
   misdemeanor unless it is shown on the trial of the offense that the  
   person has previously committed an offense under this subsection,  
   in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.
          SECTION 2.  Section 822.008, Health and Safety Code, as  
   added by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on  
   or after the effective date of this Act.  A cause of action that  
   accrues before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law  
   as it existed at the time the cause of action accrued, and that law  
   is continued in effect for that purpose.
          SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.
Logged

Skrag
Catch Dog
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2011, 06:10:29 pm »

I've read posts about guys catching hogs in houston. This will make that alot harder. Thanks for the info.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 06:15:04 pm by Skrag » Logged
Silverton Boar Dogs
Hog Master
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2011, 03:12:06 am »

ttt
Logged

charles
Internet Hog Hunting Specialist
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6233


2 burnin, 6 turnin powered by diesel


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2011, 05:15:01 pm »

 ok, iv got a question. so if this bill requires you to carry 100k insureance on any male dog NOT restrained, then how is the bill that states dogs are NOT to be restrained gonna pass? these are two different bill that contradict each other, or am i just reading it wrong?
Logged

Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can!
Silverton Boar Dogs
Hog Master
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2011, 05:27:24 pm »

Charles, This bill (HB 998) is not going anywhere right now so there is not much chance of it passing the house let alone making it through the Senate and to the Governor.

What restraint bill are you referring to? If you are talking about HB 2833 it is stuck as well, at this time, and has little chance of moving forward in its current form.

If anything changes this week I will let you know.

Thanks,
Paul T
Logged

charles
Internet Hog Hunting Specialist
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6233


2 burnin, 6 turnin powered by diesel


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2011, 05:36:03 pm »

 the bill i am refering to is hb 2116, no chain, 150sqft kennels, bill. i thought hb 2833 is the working dog bill? i did read where you spoke with someone about getting some of the working dog bill added to another bill. i am so far behind on this stuff, being in afghanistan and having slow dial-up net sucks with keeping up with the new propossable bills. if i hav my bill mixed up pls forgive me, i am seeing double screens rite now from the lack of sleep for the past 3mths.
Logged

Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can!
Silverton Boar Dogs
Hog Master
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2011, 06:07:17 pm »

Logged

charles
Internet Hog Hunting Specialist
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6233


2 burnin, 6 turnin powered by diesel


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2011, 06:30:14 pm »

 it didnt post silverton. wasnt any wording there in your post
Logged

Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can!
Silverton Boar Dogs
Hog Master
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2011, 07:15:45 pm »

charles, you can use these links to keep track of whats going on with these bills, let me know if they are working for you?

HB 1451, commercial breeder bill, http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB1451 This bill has had a committee hearing but got hammered, is in re-write for a committee substitute if it gets another shot. Language that hurt most hunters has been taken out. Working dog exemption language sent to aid writing the bill.

HB 998, insurance bill, http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB998 this bill has gotten a lot of heat and has not had a committee hearing, looks to be going no where.

HB 2116, Restraint and kennel and breeder bill, http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB2116  , this is a bad bill but it doesn't have a committee hearing yet and appears to be stalled.

HB 2833, working dog bill,  http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB2833 Needs a re-write to be submitted as a committee substitute, no committee hearing listed yet,
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 07:21:11 pm by Silverton Boar Dogs » Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!