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

[Stilly bay]

I for one hope this goes through.    I have worked with enough rescues and shelters and have seen first hand the neglect people are capable of.
all the restrictions are reasonable and make a good deal of sense.
if you read it carefully there is nothing saying you can't have your dog chained up outside, you just have to do it humanely and responsibly.

[fethrduster]

I for one hope this goes through.    I have worked with enough rescues and shelters and have seen first hand the neglect people are capable of.
all the restrictions are reasonable and make a good deal of sense.
if you read it carefully there is nothing saying you can't have your dog chained up outside, you just have to do it humanely and responsibly.

+1

[huntrights]

 

I for one hope this goes through.    I have worked with enough rescues and shelters and have seen first hand the neglect people are capable of.
all the restrictions are reasonable and make a good deal of sense.
if you read it carefully there is nothing saying you can't have your dog chained up outside, you just have to do it humanely and responsibly.

Stilly bay and fethrduster, you have a right to your opinion.  However, 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 you mentioned neighbor’s dogs keeping you 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.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Painting dog owners into a corner. Can't let them run free and can't restrain them. What else is left?  Say a dog owner has a one hour commute and works 8 hours and has a half hour lunch break. He's already broken the law by the time he gets home. God forbid he gets to work some overtime!  There's no way you're going to leave the dog in the house that long. It's more humane to have him on a tether or run where he can move around and go to the bathroom.

[Stilly bay]

while I will say after some thought the ten hour window does seem too short. if it were 12 hours, I wouldn't bat an eye.

I am just about done with this thread since its marching straight into politics and arguing politics online is absolutely useless not to mention against the guidelines of this forum.  Is this a matter of animal cruelty or implied freedom to the citizen? those voting against it will cry that rights are being taken away from people. those voting for it will say its the ability to neglect taken from animal abusers. and Im pretty sure neither will see anything eye to eye.

one more chime in is that I hope it passes. responsible dog owners need not worry about its implications. if they are a threat to your way of life I wouldn't think of you as entirely responsible to your dog.

I have seen countless dogs that are purchased with every intent of being taken care of, only to be forgotten on the end of a chain in the back yard. the only contact they have is when their loving "responsible" owner comes out to pat them on the head and feed before retiring for the day.

with any luck this will slow  impulse dog purchases, where parents buy their kids a dog and the kids loose interest and instead of giving fido to a good home he gets chained up and more or less forgotten.

I hope this will in turn slow dog production at puppy mills, because it will curtail the impulse dog purchases.

if this infringes upon what some peoples consider their rights, then that is unfortunate. I believe having a dog or even children should be a privilege and not a right.  bottom line is sometimes you can't get what you want no matter how much you think you are entitled to it. and if this means you can't afford a dog because of the investment of a kennel or because of your living situations and not being able to bring the dog in at night, then maybe in all likely hood you just can't afford a dog.   dog food and vet bills for proper care are expensive as well, its all part of the territory for dog/animal ownership or at least it damn well better be.

before I am totally flamed, I wil add that I don't believe dogs or animals are due the same rights as people, but I do believe in respecting Life and doing right by your responsibilities and after years of shelter, and rescue work I can say  too many people need to be curtailed with rules and regulations when it comes to their animals. 

I cannot for see a total and complete crackdown on dog ownership in violation to this bill, this whole thing was simply creation for leverage in extreme violations.  marijuana has been taken off the list of priorities for the police dept, enforcing this tether law will be far below marijuana. but it will be a good tool for when the time comes to enforce a blatant case, and believe it or not the police are not out to get everyone and they are able to use their own discretion in many situations.

these are just my opinions and I fully respect your right to disagree.
yours truly
one trigger happy -blood thirsty- hunter and lifelong dog owner.

[huntrights]

I cannot for see a total and complete crackdown on dog ownership in violation to this bill, this whole thing was simply creation for leverage in extreme violations. 

If legislation is written, but not intended to be enforced, it should not have been written.  Badly written laws can and do hurt innocent people. In my opinion, this legislation is badly written and has the potential of putting every dog owner at risk of prosecution at some point in time.

I started this thread because dog owners have a right to know what legislation is out there that could affect them, most would never know unless the word can get out through communication methods such as this.  Let the people be informed and make up their own mind; they just need to be sure to read the proposed legislation carefully and understand the potential implications.  I have to add, beware when assuming a law will not be enforced because of the perception it is low on the priority list or it's only intended for extreme violators (this legislation is not written that way); the law is the law.  Law enforcement officers are obligated to enforce all laws that are on the books as is our judicial system.

This thread was not intended to be inflammatory , it was intended to inform.

[Mike450r]

If you don't have a fence, don't have a dog.  Just an opinion but I am sticking to it.  I think it is a good proposal from top to bottom.

[pianoman9701]

If you don't have a fence, don't have a dog.  Just an opinion but I am sticking to it.  I think it is a good proposal from top to bottom.

You obviously don't keep hunting hounds. They need to be kept separated by tethers or they'll fight and hurt each other. Why do we need more state laws about animal abuse when we already have so many that aren't being enforced? I don't get this frame of thinking.

[Mike450r]

If you don't have a fence, don't have a dog.  Just an opinion but I am sticking to it.  I think it is a good proposal from top to bottom.

You obviously don't keep hunting hounds. They need to be kept separated by tethers or they'll fight and hurt each other. Why do we need more state laws about animal abuse when we already have so many that aren't being enforced? I don't get this frame of thinking.

You're right,  I don't.  I know several who do however,  and only one keeps his hounds separate by tethering them which I disagree with.  The others keep their hounds separated in individual chain link kennels.  So you are incorrect to say they need to be tethered,  tethering is just the cheapest option to keep them separated.  I don't think any dog should be tethered for any length of time other than possibly a rare need to do so but only very short term.  My personal feelings but thats why I think it is a good proposal.

The fact that some animal abuse laws are not being enforced isn't a good argument against a new law.  There was no law making it illegal to f*ck a dog (or any animal) in Washington until fairly recently, but I am glad there is now even if they may not enforce other animal abuse laws.  You say that as if you would be against ANY new animal abuse laws but I think it is this one in particular since you disagree with IT in particular.

[Special T]

Bad legislation runs rampant... My dog is part of the family and I treat him as such. Piss poor laws AND enforcement do not keep people from doing bad stuff now so what will this acomplish? What $$$ do they have to inforce it?  I hate to see dogs chained up or on runs ignored, but this is just another tool for the state to make  people feel good.  If you really care help find homes for dogs, promote the spay and neuter program, or SACK UP and take the dog from the owner and find it a good home!
I'm tired of whining by a bunch of panises that pass laws but don't do anything where the rubber meets the road! 

[pianoman9701]

But the fact that existing abuse laws already cover the mistreatment of animals by their owners means that this law is redundant and also penalizes people who do take good care of their animals. Just because you think that all animals need separate kennels and Iams dog food doesn't mean that they do. And it also doesn't mean that people can afford to do it. Some dogs are treated very well on tethers eating generic kibbles.

[Stilly bay]

, or SACK UP and take the dog from the owner and find it a good home!

just make sure your wearing a bullet proof vest when you do it and have a good lawyer on retainer.

[Stilly bay]

Just because you think that all animals need separate kennels and Iams dog food doesn't mean that they do. And it also doesn't mean that people can afford to do it. Some dogs are treated very well on tethers eating generic kibbles.

Dogs are damn expensive, and really don't think the vast majority of the american population see it this way. when they buy junior a puppy and figure dog food is going to cost $50 bucks a month thats just the bird chit on the tip of the ice berg. if you can afford all the incidentals that go along with dog ownership a $300-500 investment for a kennel is not much. you should have that saved in the bank incase your dog gets ill and needs to go the vet.
 
I hate to say it but the old school ways are dying and in some cases thats a good thing. for the houndsmen its a damn shame. they have been flogged to death in washington, and would love to see special considerations made for them as its a unique way of life.

dang it I thought I was done with this

[Special T]

, or SACK UP and take the dog from the owner and find it a good home!

just make sure your wearing a bullet proof vest when you do it and have a good lawyer on retainer.

I'm so tired of people not talking with thier neighbors.  If you got to work early in the am and there is a party going until 2am, be nice and walk over and tell them that, and ask nicely to tone it down instead of calling the cops all the time. If the neighbor is broke actually talking to the person might help, not all these stupid laws they come up with. I TALK to my neighbors if i have a problem and expect them to do the same.   

My father rescued a dog from that very kind of situation, He talked to the owner then walked up and took the dog off the chain home.
1 by "Sacking Up" I mean if it bothers YOU, YOU should be the one to do something, not someone else.
2 I would bet that anyone that actually was in rough shape would not take a gun to you if they couldn't afford the dog.