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

[Wtrfowlr62]

thats flat out ridiculous. My dog doesn't run away from home, why? Cause I'm a respnsible pet owner and trained her not to.

[Jim Sr.]

This is pita & the humain society's recent best work!!! It is a sham, plain & simple.
These are the same groups that think that animals should be able to sue their owners for neglect & abuse, granted there are these types of people who do abuse their animals & should be punished but to paint such a broad a stroke as this legislation without public support is a crime!!!

[fatslinger]

I just had a long conversation with Rep. Goodman (I'm impressed that he answered his own phone).  I think it's silly to make new laws when they can't enforce the current ones.  We also talked about the trapping  legislation but it seems he couldn't care less about wild animal issues.

[Stilly bay]

Now take a deep breath and let some oxygen into your system and reread this whole thing carefully...
...
none of whats listed seems unreasonable, and a lot makes sense.

how many times have neighbors dogs kept you up all night?
how many times have you seen two dogs struck out on the same chain?
if a dogs chain can reach the side walk do you want your kids walking past that house?
how many dogs have you seen baking in the sun on a short chain?
have you ever seen a dog grow into its collar because of lack of room?

its not saying you can't have your dog chained up out side, it just says you have to be humane about it and respect your neighbors.

[Fowlweather25]

There are already laws restricting everything you just mentioned! What is so hard to understand about that!?!? Laws are already in place! This law screws people! EVEN PEOPLE WHO DO IT RESPONSIBLY! You won't be allowed to have your dog tied up at night! At all! Yes it is saying you can't have your dog chained up out side! At night!

[runamuk]

Now take a deep breath and let some oxygen into your system and reread this whole thing carefully...
...
none of whats listed seems unreasonable, and a lot makes sense.

how many times have neighbors dogs kept you up all night?
how many times have you seen two dogs struck out on the same chain?
if a dogs chain can reach the side walk do you want your kids walking past that house?
how many dogs have you seen baking in the sun on a short chain?
have you ever seen a dog grow into its collar because of lack of room?

its not saying you can't have your dog chained up out side, it just says you have to be humane about it and respect your neighbors.

there are nuisance and noise laws in every jurisdiction that can be used to solve all your listed issues without a law that opens the door to legislating how we keep dogs contained....this bill opens the door to controlling us one more way.... and making dog ownership accessible only to the wealthy....maybe we should just get it over with and go to the chinese system we are headed for where the government owns us and we have no rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness

[bearpaw]

This is the post I made in the other topic about this legislation:

Some folks may not understand why this is a big deal, so I will explain.

My hounds are outdoor animals, they are completely conditioned to being outside. Simply put my dogs are like livestock, they are not inside dogs. However, we do not let the hounds run loose. I keep my dogs on chain leads that allow them about a 20 foot circle to run. They each have a dog house with straw and fresh water pan 24/7/365 that is filled daily when I feed.

If I am not allowed to keep my dogs in this manner I would have to build kennels and put concrete floors to keep them from digging out. I prefer having my dogs on leads and out in the dirt where they can dig at will. They often dig big holes for shade and coolness in the summer and they also dig just to be dogs. It would greatly sadden me and cost a lot of money to put my dogs in kennels with concrete floors where they cannot run, dig, and act like dogs.

Sometimes these legislators who are sheltered from rural life just don't have a clue.

[huntrights]

 

Now take a deep breath and let some oxygen into your system and reread this whole thing carefully...
...
none of whats listed seems unreasonable, and a lot makes sense.

how many times have neighbors dogs kept you up all night?
how many times have you seen two dogs struck out on the same chain?
if a dogs chain can reach the side walk do you want your kids walking past that house?
how many dogs have you seen baking in the sun on a short chain?
have you ever seen a dog grow into its collar because of lack of room?

its not saying you can't have your dog chained up out side, it just says you have to be humane about it and respect your neighbors.

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.

[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.

[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/

[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.

[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.