from TX-RPOA ~Part II: Houston Animal Ordinance Vote Tomorrow!

Please take the tie tonight and get those emails sent-They go to their emails first thing in the morning and will get the message as those emails come flooding into their inbox!!!

I realize the notice came a bit late on my behalf it simply did no show up in my inbox…as you can see dated today…Apparently went by unnoticed and we need to let them know-we noticed and oppose…Thank You  -B


>From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance Texas Outreach
March 11, 2014
Permission to Crosspost

PART II: Houston Animal Ordinance
RPOA neglected to mention in Part I that impounded “animals” will be
sterilized upon first impoundment and there’s a new non-commercial breeder
permit in addition to the new hobby/non-commercial breeder permit. We
suggest everyone oppose this vote for obvious reasons and ask for a copy of
the proposed new ordinance.

Forward from Zandra Anderson:

tdcheader 590px

Letters/Emails need to be sent today and Tuesday (3/11/14). There will be a
VOTE on Wednesday morning, March 12, 2014.

Email and Fax your letters if possible. Always include a subject line. If
you know your Council Member, you can address your letter to him/her and the
other members.

City Council Email Addresses:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

City Council Fax Numbers:
832 393 3336, 832 393 3302, 832 393 3291, 832.393.3224, 832.393.3313,
832.393.3302, 832.393.3279, 832.395.9571, 832.395.9426, 832.395.9423,
832.395.9410, 832.393.3251, 832.393.3327

Sample Letter:
Hon. Houston City Council:
RE: Opposed to City Owning Our Dogs after Hold Period (Sec. 6-102b)

I am opposed to Section 6-102b of the proposed Animal Ordinances. The City
has proposed to own our dogs after a short impoundment period. The new
ordinance provides that “title and sole ownership of the dog transfers to
BARC, the dog becomes the sole property of BARC, and becomes subject to
disposition as BARC deems appropriate.” Section 6-102(b).

Someone could be on a short vacation and return to find out that their pet
sitter (or veterinarian, kennel, friend or family member) accidentally lost
their dog and they don’t own it anymore.

Some rescue organizations want to own lost pets so that they do not have to
be inconvenienced by owners who would like to reclaim pets. However, what
better result for a lost dog than to go back to their family who has been
desperately searching for them.

If a rescue organization returns someone’s dog, then they can save one that
has no family. That benefits BARC because two dogs are saved instead of just

We have Constitutional rights in our property and that includes our dogs.
The City is attempting to do away with property rights without due process
which is not only unfair, it is a violation of our property rights.

For these reasons, I oppose this section of the proposed ordinance changes
and request that the ordinance be reworded so that dog owners do not lose
rights in their pets. This is a very harsh result for someone’s dog
accidentally getting out. Thank you.
Your Name & Address
Donate with PayPal or mail in:


Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned and follow this blog  -B


~ by topcatsroar on March 11, 2014.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: