HB1755 and SB5649 Restrictions on WA Dog Owners

[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.

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.

I agree special T. just not a good Idea to snag a dog off anyones porch -no matter how destitute- without getting permission first.

communication seems to be at an all time low these days, just look at all the middle class neighborhoods. there will ten separate drive ways in a cul de sac and they will all have their own basketball hoop (the point being you only need one hoop for a game). or how many times have you been at the grocery store and someone will just stand next to you silently if your in their way waiting for you to move instead of simply saying "excuse me".
it seems like the status quo for neighbors is: don't know you, don't want to know you. a far cry from the good old days when your neighbors were some of your best friends just because you were part of a community together.

[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.

[Wenatcheejay]

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.

(((If legislation is written, but not intended to be enforced, it should not have been written.)))

Common sense right there!

[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.

[Special T]

That right there is Funny!    2 state laws conflicting with each other! Never seen that before!

[ironhead14]

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

I can't believe the crap they come up with.  Politicians need to be put on leashes.  Very short ones too!  Make sure you get out to vote.  Take note of the party that brings us this type of brilliance!!