Texas governor vetoes bill protecting dogs from abuse


Sarah Betancourt
Tue, June 22, 2021, 4:59 PM



The governor of Texas has pulled a surprise move, vetoing a bipartisan bill that would have provided greater protections for dogs against human abuse.

The Republican governor, Greg Abbott, vetoed a bill on Friday that would have made unlawful restraint of a dog a criminal offense, sending animal rights activists and legislators on both sides of the aisle into a fray and spurring the hashtag #AbbottHatesDogs.
State senate bill 474, dubbed the Safe Outdoor Dogs Act, aimed to ban the use of heavy chains to keep dogs tethered. The bill had bipartisan support in the legislature, passing the house 83-32 and the senate 28-3.

In his veto, Abbott said state statutes already existed to protect dogs from animal cruelty, and the penalties proposed in the bill of $500 to $2,000, and jail time of up to 180 days, were excessive. The bill said that dog owners could have dogs outside but could not restrain them with short lines and chains or anything that could cause injury and pain to the dog.


Dog owners would have faced a $500 penalty for a first offense and class C misdemeanor, and the next penalty would have been a class B misdemeanor, for a fine of up to $2,000 and up to three months in jail.

“Texans love their dogs, so it is no surprise that our statutes already protect them by outlawing true animal cruelty,” he wrote. He said the bill would compel every dog owner, on pain of criminal penalties, to monitor how much time a dog spends in the bed of a truck, leash length and other things.
Abbott said Texas was not a place for that kind of “micro-managing and over-criminalization”.

“I’m disappointed in the governor,” the state senator Eddie Lucio Jr, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, told the Texas Tribune. “I don’t agree with everything he does, but I respect him when it comes to quality of life and protecting life. I want to include dogs in that issue.”
Law enforcement agencies expressed their disappointment over the bill’s downfall to the Houston Chronicle.

“The bill had a lot of favorable things to help us enforce the law in which people weren’t properly taking care of their pets,” said Brian Hawthorne, the Chambers county sheriff and legislative chairman of the Sheriff’s Association of Texas.

“Governor Abbott says that the current Texas statute already protects dogs, but this bill – which was carried with active support from sheriffs, law enforcement and animal control officers – would have clarified the vague language that makes the statute completely unenforceable,” said Shelby Bobosky, the Texas Humane Legislative Network’s executive director, in an emailed statement to the Guardian.

She said the bill would have provided a cleanup of basic standards for restraining dogs and could have protected dogs left outside in very hot and very cold temperatures. Bobosky said the network, which advocated for the bill, was “devastated” by the veto.
The move is being castigated across social media.

“I have to hand it to the governor. ‘Anti-voting rights, pro-animal cruelty’ is a bold re-election message,” tweeted Julián Castro, a former Democratic presidential candidate, who included animal rights in his policy platform, and former mayor of San Antonio.

Abbott owns two golden retrievers named Pancake and Peaches, who occasionally make social media appearances.

---

The laws on the books aren't good enough?

---

Either there's something hidden in the bill that made him refuse to sign or it was a dumb [BLEEP] move..

---

Posts #2 and #3 were my first thoughts.  Kinda reeks of a “look how bad a Republican Governor is” story.

---

Meh, he vetoed government overreach.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Meanwhile, the guy the OP voted for treats border crosses worse than the pets in this article.

---

The laws on the books aren't good enough?

Simple answer, no they aren't. Not by a long shot. IMO, people who abuse dogs should be executed. I know that is radical and I accept that, but the punishments currently handed out are a joke. The fact that this was a bi-partisan bill in Texas, makes it equally as frustrating. Both sides passed this overwhelmingly and this heartless d-nozzle vetoed it for no good reason. I hope Texans wake up and vote him out.

---

Posts #2 and #3 were my first thoughts.  Kinda reeks of a “look how bad a Republican Governor is” story.

This particular governor is that bad. It was a bi-partisan bill. You don't see many of those nowadays.

---

The laws on the books aren't good enough?

Simple answer, no they aren't. Not by a long shot. IMO, people who abuse dogs should be executed. I know that is radical and I accept that, but the punishments currently handed out are a joke. The fact that this was a bi-partisan bill in Texas, makes it equally as frustrating. Both sides passed this overwhelmingly and this heartless d-nozzle vetoed it for no good reason. I hope Texans wake up and vote him out.

Our resident "moderate independent" ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a hand.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Meanwhile,  the guy the OP voted for treats border crosses worse than the pets in this article.

For the 400th time, I did not vote for Biden. Get your facts straight or start taking your dementia medicine.

---

Simple answer, no they aren't. Not by a long shot. IMO, people who abuse dogs should be executed. I know that is radical and I accept that, but the punishments currently handed out are a joke. The fact that this was a bi-partisan bill in Texas, makes it equally as frustrating. Both sides passed this overwhelmingly and this heartless d-nozzle vetoed it for no good reason. I hope Texans wake up and vote him out.

Our resident "moderate independent" ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a hand.

So, you're in favor of abusing dogs? Is that you, Michael Vick?

---

Meanwhile,  the guy the OP voted for treats border crosses worse than the pets in this article.

OP voted the same as FSG and me, and she’s not a “guy”… losing a bit off your fastball, SC.

---

"We believe in victory!"   - Gus Bradley
"I don't want to believe.  I want to know."   - Carl Sagan

Meanwhile,  the guy the OP voted for treats border crosses worse than the pets in this article.

For the 400th time, I did not vote for Biden. Get your facts straight or start taking your dementia medicine.

---

Our resident "moderate independent" ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a hand.

So, you're in favor of abusing dogs? Is that you, Michael Vick?

Of course not, I'm also not in favor of government overreach like this "length of leash" law. Of course "won't someone think of the doggies!?!?!" is all some folks need to sic the government on their neighbors.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

For the 400th time, I did not vote for Biden. Get your facts straight or start taking your dementia medicine.

---

So, you're in favor of abusing dogs? Is that you, Michael Vick?

Of course not, I'm also not in favor of government overreach like this "length of leash" law. Of course "won't someone think of the doggies!?!?!" is all some folks need to sic the government on their neighbors.

It's not government overreach if the humane treatment of a domestic animal is being violated. It's just basic humanity.

---

Freaking cats. They got to him.

---

---

Our resident "moderate independent" ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a hand.

So, you're in favor of abusing dogs? Is that you, Michael Vick?

Vetoing a bill that contains flawed language does not make one a supporter of abuse.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Of course not, I'm also not in favor of government overreach like this "length of leash" law. Of course "won't someone think of the doggies!?!?!" is all some folks need to sic the government on their neighbors.

It's not government overreach if the humane treatment of a domestic animal is being violated. It's just basic humanity.

Abusing humans should face worse punishment than against animals. I'm all for treating anything in your care humanely but you can't force people to treat things how you think they should. Length of leash, not leaving your dog alone outside, etc are all great responsible dog owner rules, but they aren't laws. If you treat your dog bad and it does something bad, you are responsible.

Look at laws for people having kids. It would be great if poor, single women stopped having kids they can't support. You may not agree with their choices and how they raise their kids, but nothing criminal is happening. You shouldn't create laws where no one is being directly harmed.

You may feel it is terrible and the dog may have a bad life but unless there is harm you can't stop someone from owning a dog; just like you can't stop people from having kids.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Of course not, I'm also not in favor of government overreach like this "length of leash" law. Of course "won't someone think of the doggies!?!?!" is all some folks need to sic the government on their neighbors.

It's not government overreach if the humane treatment of a domestic animal is being violated. It's just basic humanity.

Humane is a matter of subjective perspective and that makes for bad law.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

---

So, you're in favor of abusing dogs? Is that you, Michael Vick?

Vetoing a bill that contains flawed language does not make one a supporter of abuse.

Flawed language? It was a bi-partisan bill. There was no flawed language. Some of you guys are so right wing or left wing, that you can't even see the obvious. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed that this was a solid bill. Your argument doesn't hold water.

---

It's not government overreach if the humane treatment of a domestic animal is being violated. It's just basic humanity.

Abusing humans should face worse punishment than against animals. I'm all for treating anything in your care humanely but you can't force people to treat things how you think they should. Length of leash, not leaving your dog alone outside, etc are all great responsible dog owner rules, but they aren't laws. If you treat your dog bad and it does something bad, you are responsible.

Look at laws for people having kids. It would be great if poor, single women stopped having kids they can't support. You may not agree with their choices and how they raise their kids, but nothing criminal is happening. You shouldn't create laws where no one is being directly harmed.

You may feel it is terrible and the dog may have a bad life but unless there is harm you can't stop someone from owning a dog; just like you can't stop people from having kids.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Nobody said otherwise. That has nothing to do with this particular bill. When people are abused, they face much stiffer punishments.

They could've and should've been laws, if not for the heartless governor. Humane treatment of animals should just be a basic right of all domestic creatures. How can we be humane, if people like this governor veto laws that both Democrats and Republicans agree on. He had no reason to veto it. He was just being a d-nozzle and it's gonna come back to haunt him. 

Agreed, but what does this have to do with animal abuse laws? 

But with people like this incompetent governor, we'll never have laws on the books preventing animal abusers from continuing their bad behavior.

---

It's not government overreach if the humane treatment of a domestic animal is being violated. It's just basic humanity.

Humane is a matter of subjective perspective and that makes for bad law.

Not true.  Would you want to be tied up on a short rope or chain 24 hours a day, restricting your movement to just a few feet and being forced to have to walk through your own filth, just to walk a few paces? Unless you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, the answer is no. Tell me, why anyone would veto such a law? It's pretty basic and unless you lack any compassion what so ever, this is a pretty universal sentiment. Being humane, is just that. It's not subjective at all. If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't do it to your pets.

---

Humane is a matter of subjective perspective and that makes for bad law.

Not true.  Would you want to be tied up on a short rope or chain 24 hours a day, restricting your movement to just a few feet and being forced to have to walk through your own filth, just to walk a few paces? Unless you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, the answer is no. Tell me, why anyone would veto such a law? It's pretty basic and unless you lack any compassion what so ever, this is a pretty universal sentiment. Being humane, is just that. It's not subjective at all. If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't do it to your pets.

Very true, that you don't seem to get the concept of "property" says much about your understanding of good law.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato