HB1755 and SB5649 Restrictions on WA Dog Owners

[JimmyHoffa]

I believe there are already laws to combat barking dogs based on disturbing the peace.  A dog in a kennel or out on a porch can bark just as much. 
In my opinion this is one of the ways the animal rights groups is sneaking in their agenda. What next?  Collars and leashes?  Electronic collars? 

[wraithen]

Many if not most homeowners associations and apartments will tell you to silence your dog even if it means a bark collar or you can take your dog somewhere else. If it's about barking dogs being an issue why not just make it an enforceable fine for barking dogs and get a ballot initiative. When will you people wake up and realize this state hasn't been looking out for you for years. Look at what you keep voting in. More nannys. I will eventually move somewhere else again. Most people that live here wont have that choice. Have fun. Don't forget to be inside your residence before 12am and don't come out until after 4am. Nothing good happens between those hours anyway right? Decent folks would be inside so why are you not in your house at 2am?

[pianoman9701]

everything else is just neglect or abuse issues. if you have a problem with those you don't deserve a dog in the first place. don't drink the paranoid kool-aid.

if this bill doesn't pass I will blame the Washington state school system for not focusing more on reading comprehension.

It's only that one part of the bowl which does need to be changed. As i said earlier, opposing animal neglect is a good thing. Writing a bill that could negatively affect people who are not neglecting their animals is just dumb. The new section 1 is very specific and i believe that most people could get behind this without that section.

When a bill is written in such a way that it allows for the punishment of citizens who've done nothing wrong, then it should be changed or voted out. We have to watch our step far too often as it is.

[Stilly bay]

everything else is just neglect or abuse issues. if you have a problem with those you don't deserve a dog in the first place. don't drink the paranoid kool-aid.

if this bill doesn't pass I will blame the Washington state school system for not focusing more on reading comprehension.

It's only that one part of the bowl which does need to be changed. As i said earlier, opposing animal neglect is a good thing. Writing a bill that could negatively affect people who are not neglecting their animals is just dumb. The new section 1 is very specific and i believe that most people could get behind this without that section.

When a bill is written in such a way that it allows for the punishment of citizens who've done nothing wrong, then it should be changed or voted out. We have to watch our step far too often as it is.

How would you change it, if you could ? would you omit the offending article or alter it?

[pianoman9701]

My  is that we already have animal protection laws in place that penalize, even jail animal abusers. I would scrap it altogether and enforce the laws already on the books. In lieu of that, I would remove the new section one and anything that puts a limit on how long a dog can be tethered. Incidentally, there are already local ordinances that deal with barking dogs. We should defer to local authority in cases of noise limitations or nuisance/disturbing the peace regulations. A barking dog in Everett is different than a barking dog 2 miles from the nearest home.

[Dhoey07]

Another case of the government micro managing people.

[huntrights]

 

I hope this goes through, this won't affect people who care about their dogs.

unfortunately this is going to be a low priority for the police, lower even than pot with just got dropped to a non priority.

every thing listed is reasonable and makes sense. no where does it say you can't have your dog chained up, you just have to be humane about it and respect your neighbors .

I cannot fathom any opposition to this bill by responsible dog owners.

Stilly bay, 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.

[runamuk]

I hope it passes too. Common sense restrictions might atleast help the irresponsible to think twice while being a dog owner. Something needs to be done to curb neglect etc. All Dogs deserve justice. All animals for that matter.

then you would also be for common sense restrictions on owning guns...like must be a certain age and must keep them locked a specific manner the government decides is safest??

It is all the same...the good dog owners are already responsible and the bad ones are currently violating ordinances and laws that exist now whats going to make them suddenly obey a "new" law?  and if by some freak chance it passes then the over burdened sheriffs departments get to enforce this ...so my question is should they be chasing down complaints of tied up dogs put out for a quick 10 minute midnight pee or should they be looking into the tweeker snooping around your house because they cannot be in both places at once.  so in effect this law doesnt do crap to actually protect dogs but it effectively strips more rights to privacy of the citizens...it creates more rightful intrusion by authorities since ownership of a dog now makes you suspect....

[BIGINNER]

In a lot of ways I like this, I am a dog owner and I never put my dog on a line of any kind, but I think this is for all the people who do not take care of thier dogs the right way. nothing worse then a dog barking who it tied up all night.

I had a lab, use to keep him on a run 100 ft cable with a pulley and then a 30ft lead attached to the dog.  He was aways kept outside, too big for inside.  Never barked all night.  As for taking care of the right way, I guess my other option is to lock him in a crate all day while I am at work, bet he will love that.

I got a lab, he's inside all day when i'm here and gone and not in a crate. How's he too big for ur house?

so,.. you're saying everybody should keep their dogs inside at night?  i wouldn't be caught dead leaving any kind of animal inside our house. this bill doesnt affect one bit since i hate tieing up my dog,.. and i keep them in a kennel, but there was a one week period after i moved to my new place where i didn't have a kennel, so i kept the dogs tied up at night,... the dogs were comfortable, and well fed, and weren't neglected,  so by this law i could have been doing jail time for that,  its just plain stupid. if you don't like tieing up your dog,... well its easy, just don't do it,  don't be shoving your life style down other people's throats, yes there is people that just negelct dogs and leave them tied up all the time without any attention, but also i've sen just as much if not more people that just neglect their dogs and let them fend for themselves searching dumpsters for food,  you can't fix stupid with laws that will affect the normal people with common sence.

[Stilly bay]

I hope it passes too. Common sense restrictions might atleast help the irresponsible to think twice while being a dog owner. Something needs to be done to curb neglect etc. All Dogs deserve justice. All animals for that matter.

then you would also be for common sense restrictions on owning guns...like must be a certain age and must keep them locked a specific manner the government decides is safest??

It is all the same...the good dog owners are already responsible and the bad ones are currently violating ordinances and laws that exist now whats going to make them suddenly obey a "new" law?  and if by some freak chance it passes then the over burdened sheriffs departments get to enforce this ...so my question is should they be chasing down complaints of tied up dogs put out for a quick 10 minute midnight pee or should they be looking into the tweeker snooping around your house because they cannot be in both places at once.  so in effect this law doesnt do crap to actually protect dogs but it effectively strips more rights to privacy of the citizens...it creates more rightful intrusion by authorities since ownership of a dog now makes you suspect....

I am resigned to this being a leverage bill that will allow the blatant violators to be prosecuted swiftly and loose ends to be tied up neatly without wasting any more court time than needed. 

the hypothesis that once this passes the police dept is going to drop every thing to pursue dog owners in violation of this bill over other crimes is completely asinine.  show me an example of a particular law that overlaps this proposed one. One caveat being this must be a law specific to the sheriff/police dept jurisdiction and NOT animal control or other department. I would love to know as I seem to be missing something here. 

[pianoman9701]

It amazes me that people will turn a blind eye to the negative effects that sweeping, poorly written legislation will have on the 9 out of 10 people who DO take proper care of their animals. It also amazes me how quickly people just accept that we need more laws everyday, regardless of the fact that the old ones are not being enforced. Why are people so addicted to new legislation? Every new law has the capacity or further limiting us in our homes and lives. This is not the freedom our forefathers envisioned. They envisioned a government which only stepped in when absolutely necessary, not at every opportunity.

[JimmyHoffa]

  
So, if you come back from walking the dog and loop the leash around the trailer hitch while getting the vehicle ready...it appears you've just violated this law (assuming normal leash length) and can go to jail.  Or at the park and wrap the leash around the bench while you tie your shoe....

And to add:
I don't think cops will be out patroling for this....BUT I do think animal rights people will be calling the police when they see a dog tied up.  I can just imagine all the greenies from Seattle headed out for their hikes driving through small towns calling the sheriff because the rope looks to short or the dog was on the rope when they drove by 11 hours ago, etc.

[Elkaholic daWg]

We already have laws that protect animals from abuse, including leaving them outside without proper care or protection from the cold. Those who have hunting hounds often must keep them tied up to keep them apart or the dogs will fight and can injure or kill each other. The dog that needs to go out at night for even a short time wouldn't be able to be tethered for even 5 minutes under this law.

I understand and applaud those of you who would protect animals from abuse, but don't do it with this law. It's a bad law with a broad sweep that will restrict people who ARE taking good care of their animals by tethering them to keep them from harm.

Not only should you not support this bill, you should oppose it. My 

Thanks for the EASY letter!

[huntrights]

show me an example of a particular law that overlaps this proposed one. One caveat being this must be a law specific to the sheriff/police dept jurisdiction and NOT animal control or other department. I would love to know as I seem to be missing something here. 

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 amazes me that people will turn a blind eye to the negative effects that sweeping, poorly written legislation will have on the 9 out of 10 people who DO take proper care of their animals. It also amazes me how quickly people just accept that we need more laws everyday, regardless of the fact that the old ones are not being enforced. Why are people so addicted to new legislation? Every new law has the capacity or further limiting us in our homes and lives. This is not the freedom our forefathers envisioned. They envisioned a government which only stepped in when absolutely necessary, not at every opportunity.