HB1755 and SB5649 Restrictions on WA Dog Owners

[huntrights]

You folks need to know about this legislation; if you own a dog, it affects you.

Related forum thread:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=92038.0

Washington State has recently passed two bills through the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.  Both bills, HB1755 and SB5649 are very restrictive and will affect every dog owner in the state.  Like me, I suspect most dog breeders, trainers, dog owners in general, and those that have working dogs knew nothing about this pending legislation; you have a right to know and to decide for yourselves.   

They contain such restrictions as:

“(1)(a) A person shall be subject to penalties as provided in this
8 section if the person leaves a dog restrained or tied outside by use of
9 a tether, chain, rope, cord, pulley, trolley system, or other device
10 under any of the following circumstances:
11 (i) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
12 (ii) For more than ten hours consecutively, or more than ten hours
13 within any twenty-four hour period;…”
“1 (iv) On the same chain, tether, rope, cord, pulley, trolley system,
2 or fixed point as another animal;
3 (v) In a manner that allows the dog to be within ten feet of any
4 public right-of-way;
5 (vi) In a manner that prevents the dog from lying, sitting, and
6 standing comfortably, and without the restraint becoming taut, and that
7 does not allow the dog a range of movement equal to at least three
8 times the length of the dog, measured from the tip of its nose to the
9 base of its tail; …”
“18 (b) A person shall be subject to penalties as provided in this
19 section if the person leaves a dog restrained or tied under
20 circumstances that do not meet the following requirements:
21 (i) Any tether, fastener, chain, tie, or other restraint must weigh
22 no more than one-eighth the body weight of the dog, and must be
23 attached to a properly fitted buckle-type harness or collar, not less
24 than one inch in width, that provides enough room between the collar or
25 harness and the dog's throat to allow normal breathing and swallowing.”

We all care about our dogs and would not intentionally hurt them.  If these laws pass and you have your dog tethered in your back yard at 10:01pm, you have just broken the law.  Think about it.  In my opinion, they’ve gone too far with this.

I feel relatively confident in saying that most dog owners would oppose this legislation.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe most dog owners know this legislation is pending.  Please write your representatives about your views on these bills. 

Washington Legislature Web Site link for HB1755
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1755&year=2011

HB1755 Bill Analysis:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1755%20HBA%20JUDI%2012.pdf

HB1755 PDF link:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1755-S.pdf

[huntrights]

There have been somes posts in other forums that indicate support for this legislation.  I would like to ask those people to read the legislation a little closer and then consider the following:

There are already plenty of animal cruelty laws on the books.  We don’t need more legislation entering into our personal lives placing unjustified restrictions on every dog owner in the state.  In another post Stilly bay mentioned neighbor’s dogs keeping people up at night; there are already laws and ordinances in place to address such issues.  Many people don’t have fences to confine their dogs, so they still give their dogs the freedom to be outside on a tether of some type versus being confined in a house, garage, or some other structure.  According to this new legislation, dog owners can be sentenced to county jail for up to 60 days if their dog is tethered for over 10 hours in a 24-hour period, they can go to jail if their dog is tethered any time between 10:00pm to 6:00am, they can go to jail if the tether is slightly less than 3-times the dog’s length, they can go to jail if the collar is slightly less than 1-inch wide, they can go to jail if the weight of the tether is greater than 1/8 of the dog’s weight, they can go to jail if the dog gets entangled on another object (this could be their dog-house by the way), etc.  If there is a vicious dog tethered next to a sidewalk where kids are walking; there are plenty of laws in place that address that issue; please reference RCWs 16.08.010 thru 16.08.100 (specifically 16.08.090).

If dog owners of this state had known about this proposed legislation sooner, I seriously doubt it would have made it past the Judiciary Committees.  This is bad legislation and it should go no further.

[huntrights]

For those wondering about existing laws:

Relevant laws already in place are within these RCW chapters (these were found just doing a quick search).  Local ordinances should also be considered.

Chapter 16.52 RCW
Prevention of cruelty to animals

Chapter 16.08 RCW
Dogs (formerly dangerous dogs)

Chapter 9.08 RCW
Animals, crimes relating to


Here is an added important note:

Since the AVMA was mentioned at the beginning of the Bill Analysis; I contacted the AVMA to inquire about the reference to them.  AVMA response (this is not a quote): They [AVMA] have not taken a position on legislation related to tethering because there have been no scientific studies producing valid data establishing exactly what tethering practices are detrimental to a dog.  It appears that the information about tethering legislation in other states that was referred to in the Bill Analysis was obtained from the AVMA web site where they [AVMA] have listed such legislation.  Reference to the AVMA in the beginning of the Bill Analysis does not constitute their endorsement of the Bill; if such endorsement is implied by the writers of the bill or others, the AVMA said they will correct that misinterpretation.

[huntrights]

It appears some folks are missing the primary point regarding objections to this legislation.  As I stated before, the AVMA told me very clearly that they will not endorse this type of tethering legislation because there have been no valid scientific studies producing valid data establishing what exactly is detrimental to a dog regarding tethering.  All of us want the humane treatment of dogs; there is absolutely no argument there.  The problem is that this is badly written legislation that has the potential of turning every dog owner in this state into a criminal at some point in time.  Please read the legislation carefully.  Here are some of my point-by-point objections and interpretations:

1)   Having a dog tethered between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. has absolutely nothing to do with the humane treatment of dogs.  It doesn’t matter if the dog owner is outside with the dog while it’s tethered in that time frame or not; the dog owner will be guilty of breaking the law.  This appears to be related to barking dog issues which are covered by local ordinances and/or other laws; it doesn’t belong in legislation such as this anyway.
2)   If your dog is tethered for more than ten hours in a 24 hour period, you are guilty. There is no valid data to support this tethering time restriction.
3)   If a severe weather advisory has been issued in your area and you tether your dog, you are guilty unless they have some natural or protective structure they can go to.  It doesn’t matter if the bad weather happens or not, you are guilty.
4)   In the case of hunting dogs and other scenarios, several dogs may be connected to a primary length of chain or tie-line by a secondary tether of some type; how does this constitute inhumane treatment of dogs?  Is the tie-line considered part of the tether?  Do this and you may be guilty.
5)   If your dog is tethered within ten feet of a sidewalk (public right-of-way), you are guilty.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the humane treatment of dogs.  There are already dangerous dog laws in place (Chapter 16.08 RCW).
6)   If you tether your dog on a restraint that is less than three times the length of the dog (measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail), you are guilty.  It doesn’t matter how long the dog is tethered or if you are present, you are still guilty.  Where is the valid data to support this restriction?
7)   If your dog gets sick while on a tether, you might be guilty.
8.)   If your dog is in distress (definition please) and on a tether, you are guilty.
9)   If your dog is in the advanced stages of pregnancy (definition please) and on a tether, you are guilty.
10)   If your dog is under six-months of age and on a tether, you are guilty.  Where is the valid data to support this restriction?
11)   What exactly constitutes conditions that “force” a dog to stand, sit, or lie down in its own excrement or urine?  My dogs run free in a large, fenced-in back yard all day.  Guess what; they step in their own excrement all the time even when it’s picked up frequently.  Regardless of the length of a tether, your dogs may still step in their own excrement.  If they do, are you guilty?
12)   If a tether weighs more than one-eighth of your dog’s body weight, you are guilty.  Where is the valid data to support this restriction?  Does this include the weight of the tie-line where you may already be guilty of tethering more than one dog to a fixed point?  If so, you may be guilty.
13)   If your dog is tethered while wearing anything other than a “properly” fitted buckle-type harness or collar, you are guilty.  What is “properly-fitted”?  The only criteria that makes sense is if the dog has trouble breathing, swallowing, or its circulation is cut off due to the restraint, but I guess that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?  “Properly-fitted” is very dependent on the anatomy of every individual dog.  Beware: This is very subjective; you might be guilty.
14)   If your dog is tethered and its collar is less than one-inch in width, you are guilty.  There is no valid data to support this restriction.  I guess that’s too bad for the little Chihuahua and every other small breed of dog with collars less than one-inch in width. 
 
Frankly, there is only one part of this legislation that makes any sense: A dog should not be tethered in a manner that causes injury or pain to the dog.  That’s it; no more, no less.  Inflicting physical injury or substantial pain on an animal is already clearly addressed in Chapter 16.52 RCW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Specifically RCW 16.52.205).

Please carefully read and understand the legislation, and the potential implications it can have on every dog owner in this state.  If you are a dog owner, will you inadvertently become a criminal as a result of this badly written legislation?  Think about it. Remember, the law is the law; if you break the law, you are guilty.  I highly recommend writing your representatives about this legislation very soon.

[Rusty II]

Speaking of Dogs in the bear hunting section, is there a way to have your dog accompany you while bear hunting? What if it were a service animal for emotional stability reasons or something?

[bearpaw]

Speaking of Dogs in the bear hunting section, is there a way to have your dog accompany you while bear hunting? What if it were a service animal for emotional stability reasons or something?

Nothing says you cannot have a dog with you, it says you cannot use the dog to hunt bear:



RCW 77.15.240

Unlawful use of dogs — Public nuisance — Penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful use of dogs if the person:

     (a) Negligently fails to prevent a dog under the person's control from pursuing or injuring deer, elk, or an animal classified as endangered under this title;

     (b) Uses the dog to hunt deer or elk; or

     (c) During the closed season for a species of game animal or game bird, negligently fails to prevent the dog from pursuing such animal or destroying the nest of a game bird.

     (2) Unlawful use of dogs is a misdemeanor. A dog that is the basis for a violation of this section may be declared a public nuisance.

[bankwalker]

I support this within reason.

I know quite a few people who keep their dogs chained up with minimal length chains 24/7. Weather does not matter, rain, snow, heat does not matter. With no means of protection from weather. A few of them never really acknowledge the dogs exist aside from feeding them a few times a week.
People like this make me sick. And they deserve to be fined big.

To those who do take care of their dogs responsibly and must keep them chained at night for various reasons. And obviously are not treating the dog badly, this law i dont agree with

Like i said. I support it within reason.

[huntrights]

I support this within reason.

I know quite a few people who keep their dogs chained up with minimal length chains 24/7. Weather does not matter, rain, snow, heat does not matter. With no means of protection from weather. A few of them never really acknowledge the dogs exist aside from feeding them a few times a week.
People like this make me sick. And they deserve to be fined big.

To those who do take care of their dogs responsibly and must keep them chained at night for various reasons. And obviously are not treating the dog badly, this law i dont agree with

Like i said. I support it within reason.

There are already animal abuse laws on the books; this legislation is not needed.  These proposed laws are extreme and misguided.  I personally spoke to the AVMA and they DO NOT endorse this legislation as the summary of the bill might lead some to believe with a quick scan.

There is additional dialog on this topic in another part of this forum you might like to take a look. 

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=92095.0

It's good someone made a new post in this forum string.  It appears it has been rintroduced by resolution.  Start writing your emails folks; this is bad legislation.

[plottwalker]

when would this bill be brought up, or whats the process that will happen to pass this along, i am 100% NOT for this and will do what ever to help stop it from passing.

[Special T]

 

The price of freedom is eternal vigulance!

[huntrights]

HB1755 Dog Tethering Bill has not gone away!  The same holds true for its companion Bill, SB5649.

 "2012 2ND SPECIAL SESSION  Apr 11 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status."

I am not sure how the legislative process works at this point, but these Bills are not dead.

Read the Bills.  If these Bills are passed, at some point in time, virtually every dog owner is likely to violate some portion of these Bills.  This is badly written legislation; it is NOT needed, and can very easily be abused if passed.

Relevant laws already in place are within these RCW chapters:

Chapter 16.52 RCW
Prevention of cruelty to animals

Chapter 16.08 RCW
Dogs (formerly dangerous dogs)

Chapter 9.08 RCW
Animals, crimes relating to


Link to the Washington State Legislature page pertaining to HB1755 and SB5649
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1755&year=2011

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5649&year=2011

Links to the Bills
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1755-S.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5649-S.pdf

Link to the Bill Analysis:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1755%20HBR%20JUDI%2012.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5649-S.pdf

The AVMA DOES NOT endorse this legislation.

Since the AVMA was mentioned at the beginning of the Bill Analysis; I contacted the AVMA to inquire about the reference to them.  AVMA response (this is not a quote): They [AVMA] have not taken a position on legislation related to tethering because there have been no valid scientific studies producing valid data establishing exactly what tethering practices are detrimental to a dog.  It appears that the information about tethering legislation in other states that was referred to in the Bill Analysis was obtained from the AVMA web site where they [AVMA] have listed such legislation.  Reference to the AVMA in the beginning of the Bill Analysis does not constitute their endorsement of the Bill; if such endorsement is implied by the writers of the bill or others, the AVMA said they will contact those making such claim and have them correct that misinterpretation.

If you need to hear for yourselves; call them:
AVMA's Department of State Legislative and Regulatory Affairs:
Phone: 847-285-6780


These are the sponsors of HB1755:
Representatives Goodman, Fitzgibbon, Dunshee, Springer, Anderson, Dickerson, Hunt

These are the sponsors of the companion Bill SB5649:
Senators Harper, Shin, Murray, Nelson, Pridemore, Chase, Kohl-Welles, Kline

Write your representatives and ask them to oppose HB1755 and SB5649.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/

[bearpaw]

Many hound owners keep their dogs outside on chains. I keep my dogs on 10 foot chains, this allows the dogs to excercise daily when ever they want as long as they want and they run on their chains a lot. It is far better for my dogs to be able to run whenever they want than to be stuffed in a kennel or in a home where they can't run.

In addition the dogs are on loose ground and they love to dig, that is just part of being a dog. If I was a dog I would much rather be able to run a 20 foot circle and dig anytime than be in a kennel with concrete floors or stuffed in a house where I could not dig or run at will.

So often this type of legislation comes from some city dweller with little real consideration of what a dog's life is really like, all they know is seeing dogs stuffed into a concrete floored kennel at a HSUS pound waiting for the magical shot.

You want to see some happy dogs come visit our hounds and see how they enjoy running and digging whenever they want.

[Dave B]

That is the biggest load of bull I have ever heard.  I have a dog that I keep chained up.  He has 25 ft of chain and a large dogloo. By the way that dogloo gets warmer than my house in the winter.  He is chained up while I'm at work and let off when I get home.  He is allowed to lay on his bed at the front door until I go to bed.  Then its back outside for the poor dog.  That is what I have to do.  I have tried the underground fence with the stubborn dog collar.  He figured that out pretty quick.  He chewed through his chain link kennel and bred the neighbors dog.  I tried using lighter cable but he breaks them every 3 months.  At almost $30 a pop (for the large breed cable) that adds up fast.  I cant keep him inside because  my wife's cat cant stay locked up all day or become a kitty chew toy.  And that would not go over good.  They can tell me that I am abusing my dog all they want but he has a good life and I'm doing the best I can for him.

[TWG2A]

What a crock!  As others have commented here, they need only enforce the plethora of laws already on the books.


"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." ~Ayn Rand

[huntrights]

Contact your representatives and repsectfully ask them to oppose the Bills and tell them why.

[huntrights]

Speaking of Dogs in the bear hunting section, is there a way to have your dog accompany you while bear hunting? What if it were a service animal for emotional stability reasons or something?

I believe hounds are still allowed on depredation hunts.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

[TWG2A]

You can bet the so-called "Humane Society of the United States" (HSUS) has their hooves all over this legislation.

If you're not familiar with that group of gun-grabbing, anti-hunting fanatics, you can learn more from this (pardon the unintended pun) watchdog site: http://www.humanewatch.org

[huntrights]

I have been told that these bills or something very similar is likely surface again during the next legislative session.  Watch for it and be ready to react.

“2012 2ND SPECIAL SESSION  Apr 11 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.”

Since this legislative session is now over, we appear to have a reprieve.

Take note of who sponsored these Bills when you are casting your votes in the election this year; they will NOT get my vote.

[TWG2A]

It's pretty nice here in Montana that our legislature meets only once every two years, and only for 90 days.  Sure don't miss the billowing firehose in Olympia.

[huntrights]

I have just received some information regarding the legislative process associated with HB1755 and SB5649.  Here is the information I received:
 
“Since the session ended before any action could be taken on either bill they are considered dead bills.  In order for any further action to be taken, a New Bill with a New Number would have to be authored by a Sponsor and introduced at the 2013 legislative session. We will have to watch for a New Bill from  Goodman, Fitzgibbon, Dunshee, Springer, Anderson, Dickerson, Hunt on the House side or Harper, Shin, Murray, Nelson, Pridemore, Chase, Kohl-Welles, Kline on the Senate side. Unless elections change some of these names, they are the most probable culprits to keep an eye on. As a matter of fact, Hans Dunshee is probably the Hunters greatest enemy in Washington.”


I agree with Blackdog and TWG2A; letting our representatives know there is significant opposition to this type invasive and unnecessary legislation may discourage any future support when the pushers of this legislation try to slip it in under the radar again in 2013.  It doesn't hurt to be proactive on issues like this, especially when we believe there is a good chance of it resurfacing in the next session.  By the way, the 2013 legislative session starts in January, so it’s not that far off.

[Rusty II]

Speaking of Dogs in the bear hunting section, is there a way to have your dog accompany you while bear hunting? What if it were a service animal for emotional stability reasons or something?

I believe hounds are still allowed on depredation hunts.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Negative.

[huntrights]

There are very specific circumstances with specific laws/regulations relating to the use of dogs in hunting black bear and cougar.  Here are some of the related laws:


WAC 232-12-025
Hunts authorized pursuant to RCW 77.12.240.

RCW 77.12.240
Authority to take wildlife — Disposition.

RCW 77.15.245
Unlawful practices — Black bear baiting — Exceptions — Illegal hunting — Use of dogs — Exceptions — Penalties

WAC 232-12-243
Cougar management removals.


Anyhow, watch for any future attempts to introduce a dog tethering law that does nothing but place unjustified and excessive restrictions on all dog owners in our state.


Relevant laws already in place are within these RCW chapters:

Chapter 16.52 RCW
Prevention of cruelty to animals

Chapter 16.08 RCW
Dogs (formerly dangerous dogs)

Chapter 9.08 RCW
Animals, crimes relating to

[huntrights]

Attempts to enact tethering laws are happening around the country. 

http://www.ussportsmen.org/legislative-action/delaware-anti-tethering-bill-introduced/

This appears to be a planned, national attack on dog owners.  Which organizations are pushing this legislation behind the scenes?  I wonder if the sponsors of these bills would be willing to reveal who is pushing this type of extremely restrictive legislation.