HB1755 and SB5649 Restrictions on WA Dog Owners

[pianoman9701]

Woohoo so imprison them instead of given them a run on a high line with a nice doghouse and dry bedding, with an automatic waterer. Hmm where they can chit and piss without having to be within 10 feet of it makes perfect sense!    NOT

It is safer for the dog. Leaving a dog on a long lead is not safe unsupervised. The wonderful dumped off pit bull shows up and tears your dog apart because he's tied to a long line and you're not home? That doesn't make sense to me. It is unsafe.

Let me get this right: So, because the owner of a stray pitbull has violated the law and his dog is running wild, apparently randomly killing animals, the owner of the tethered dog should be restricted? This is true liberal thinking. That's like saying that if I were attacked by a wandering pit bull, we should pass a law that 54 year olds shouldn't be allowed to walk without wearing Kevlar pit bull protection.

[Happy Gilmore]

Woohoo so imprison them instead of given them a run on a high line with a nice doghouse and dry bedding, with an automatic waterer. Hmm where they can chit and piss without having to be within 10 feet of it makes perfect sense!    NOT

It is safer for the dog. Leaving a dog on a long lead is not safe unsupervised. The wonderful dumped off pit bull shows up and tears your dog apart because he's tied to a long line and you're not home? That doesn't make sense to me. It is unsafe.

Let me get this right: So, because the owner of a stray pitbull has violated the law and his dog is running wild, apparently randomly killing animals, the owner of the tethered dog should be restricted? This is true liberal thinking. That's like saying that if I were attacked by a wandering pit bull, we should pass a law that 54 year olds shouldn't be allowed to walk without wearing Kevlar pit bull protection.

Didn't it say for over 10 hours left unsupervised? I don't care about potential laws other people break. I only care about keeping my animals safe. I don't believe that a law should be made for this but, I would never leave my own dogs home alone on  a long lead. I would with a very well fenced yard to make sure they couldn't get in/ my dogs out.

Not true liberal thinking. You can do what you want to do but, I'm only commenting that I don't think it's safe for the dogs. They are the ones who don't have a choice.

[Fowlweather25]

So as long

So theoretically that same pit bull could show up and chew on me while I'm home alone! Should I stay in the house cause it's safer? Your dog could drown when hunting or get attacked by a friggen otter, should they just stay in the kennel? I would much rather give my dog freedom to move and be a dog than to imprison him in a kennel or crate with nowhere to do his business!

Dogs are a responsibility and daily cleaning is required, along with exercise, vet visits, shots and training.
[/quote so as long as it's cleaned once a day it's ok to haveto live in that condition as long as you are gone for the day?

[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.

Didn't it say for over 10 hours left unsupervised?

It says: "For more than ten hours consecutively, or more than ten hours within any twenty-four hour period".

[Happy Gilmore]

Yeah, I agree it is poorly written. I got off track-

[BIGINNER]

Woohoo so imprison them instead of given them a run on a high line with a nice doghouse and dry bedding, with an automatic waterer. Hmm where they can chit and piss without having to be within 10 feet of it makes perfect sense!    NOT

It is safer for the dog. Leaving a dog on a long lead is not safe unsupervised. The wonderful dumped off pit bull shows up and tears your dog apart because he's tied to a long line and you're not home? That doesn't make sense to me. It is unsafe.

well in that case a metior can hit my dogs while they're in the kennel... 

[Happy Gilmore]

Woohoo so imprison them instead of given them a run on a high line with a nice doghouse and dry bedding, with an automatic waterer. Hmm where they can chit and piss without having to be within 10 feet of it makes perfect sense!    NOT

It is safer for the dog. Leaving a dog on a long lead is not safe unsupervised. The wonderful dumped off pit bull shows up and tears your dog apart because he's tied to a long line and you're not home? That doesn't make sense to me. It is unsafe.

well in that case a metior can hit my dogs while they're in the kennel... 

Maybe it's different for me because I'm expected to keep other peoples' dogs safe?

[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.